Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010229892023 2026:GAU-AS:8443 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/6214/2023 M/S DEEPAK AND CO. AND ANR A PARTNER SHIP FIRM REGISTERED UNDER THE INDIAN PARTNERSHUP ACT 1932 HAIVING ITS OFFICE AT 7 HARGOBIND ENCLAVE ANAND VIHAR DELHI 110092 THROUGH ITS PARTER POONAM PORWAL 2: POONAM PORWAL W/O RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA PARTNER MM/S DEEPAK AND CO 7 HARGOBIND ENCLAVE ANAND VIHAR DELHI 11009 VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND 4 ORS THROUGH THE SECRETARY MINISTRY RAILWAY RAIL BHAWAN RAIL BHAWAN RAISINA ROAD NEW DELHI 110001 2:THE RAILWAY BOARD THORUGH THE CHARIMEN RAIL BHAWAN RAISINA ROAD NEW DELHI 110001 3:THE GENERAL MANAGER MOBILE CATERING SERVICES IRCTC STATESMAN HOUSE B 148 BARAKHMBA ROAD NEW DELHI 11001 4:THE GROUP GENERAL MANAGER NZ EZ WZ SCZ AND SZ IRCTC STATEMAN HOUSE B 148 BARAKHAMBA ROAD NEW DELHI 110001 5:THE INDIAN RAILWAY CATERING AND TOURSIM CORPORATION LTD. A GOVE OF INDIA ENTERPRISE THROUGH THE REGIONAL MANAGER IRCTC REGIONAL OFFICE 4 D MANDOVI APPARTMENT OPPOSITE RABINDRA BHAWAN GNB ROAD AMBARI GUWAHATI 781001 ASSA Page No.# 2/5 For the Petitioner(s) : Ms. B. Choudhury, Sr. Advocate Ms. Imsenkala, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, Sr. Advocate Mr. H. Gupta, CGC Mr. A. Singh, Advocate BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH ORDER Date : 12.06.2026 Heard Ms. B. Choudhury, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. Imsenkala, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. Mr. H. Gupta, the learned CGC appears on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. A. Singh, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent Nos. 3 to 5. 2. The present proceedings raise the question as to whether the power to revise the license fee vests with the Railways or with Indian Railways Catering and Tourism Corporation Limited (for short, “IRCTC”). 3. It is very pertinent to take note of that the petitioners in the instant case were initially granted the license for providing catering services in Train Nos. 15635-36 (GHY-OKHA-DWARKA EXPRESS); 15667-68 (KYQ-GIMB-KYQ EXPRESS) and 15631-32 (GHY-BME EXPRESS) under the Catering Policy, 2010. The Page No.# 3/5 petitioners thereupon were granted an extension specifically taking into account Clause 17.5 of the Catering Policy, 2010. At the time when the extensions were granted, the Catering Policy, 2017 came into force. 4. The said Catering Policy, 2017, IRCTC mandated IRCTC to carry out unbundling by creating a distinction between food preparation and food distribution. The IRCTC was also made responsible for management of the catering services through the mobile catering units, base kitchens and other kitchens and other kitchens units viz. Cell Kitchens, Refreshment Rooms At A1 and A Category Stations, Food Plazas, Food Courts, Train Side Vending and Jan Ahaara. 5. It is under such circumstances, 3 Tripartite Agreements were entered into by between the Chief Commercial Manager- PM and Catering, NF Railway; the Indian Railways Catering and Tourism Corporation Limited and the petitioners dated 06.10.2017, 05.10.2017 and 10.10.2017 respectively. 6. It is relevant to take note of Clause 8.9 of the said Tripartite Agreements dated 06.10.2017, 05.10.2017 and 10.10.2017. The said Clause 8.9 is reproduced herein under: “8.9 In case of any dispute, the matter shall be referred for Arbitration to a Sole Arbitrator to be appointed as per Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 as amended from time to time.” Page No.# 4/5 7. From a perusal of the above quoted Clause, it would show that if there arises any dispute, the dispute is required to be referred for Arbitration to a Sole Arbitrator to be appointed as per the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 8. The dispute in the instant case, as aforementioned, is a dispute as to whether the NF Railway or the IRCTC would have the power to revise the license fee. 9. The said issue, in the opinion of this Court, is a dispute coming within the realm of interpretation of the Tripartite Agreements dated 06.10.2017, 05.10.2017 and 10.10.2017 and as the parties herein duly agrees for referring such dispute to Arbitration, this Court is not inclined to entertain the instant writ petition. 10. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands disposed of with the following observations and directions: (i) For the reasons aforementioned, this Court is not inclined to entertain the instant writ petition. (ii) The parties herein are granted liberty to avail respective remedies in terms with Clause 8.9 of the Tripartite Agreements dated 06.10.2017, 05.10.2017 and 10.10.2017. (iii) This Court has not decided as to whether the NF Page No.# 5/5 Railway or the IRCTC would have the authority to revise the license fee. The same shall be dependent upon such adjudication to be carried out by the Arbitral Tribunal to be appointed in terms with Clause 8.9 of the Tripartite Agreements dated 06.10.2017, 05.10.2017 and 10.10.2017. (iv) Interim orders passed in the writ petition stands vacated. The parties are left to avail remedies under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, if so advised. JUDGE Comparing Assistant