High Court · 2025

6.6.2024, 26.11.2024 and 27.3.2025. By t he first order dat ed 6.6.2024, pet it ioner was inform ed t hat t erm of franchise given t o him will com e t o an end on

9.6.2024 and he was asked t o ensure peaceful handover of food plaza at Kat hgodam Railway St at ion t o I RCTC on 9.6.2024. By t he second order dat ed

26.11.2024, pet it ioner ’s request for ext ension of franchise for furt her 3 years was t urned down. By t he t hird order dat ed 27.3.2025, pet it ioner was inform ed t hat t he com pet ent aut horit y in I RCTC has direct ed t o close t he operat ion and also t o peacefully vacat e t he prem ises of food plaza in presence of I RCTC official on 2

27.3.2025.

4. Learned Counsel for t he pet it ioner relied upon Clause 16.1.4 of t he Cat ering Policy, 2010, which reads as under: “ 16.1.4 Tenure of Food Plaza will be for 9 years wit h an ext ension of 3 years on sat isfact ory perform ance and paym ent and paym ent of all dues and arrears and wit hdrawal of court cases, if any.”

5. Based on t he aforesaid clause of t he cat ering policy, learned Counsel for t he pet it ioner subm it t ed t hat since t here was no com plaint of unsat isfact ory perform ance against t he pet it ioner during t he ent ire t erm of t he franchise given t o him , t herefore, he has a right of ext ension, in view of t he aforesaid clause.

6. Learned Counsel t he respondent s, however, relied upon Clause 3.1 of t he t ender docum ent , pursuant t o which franchise was grant ed t o t he pet it ioner. Clause 3.1 of t he t ender docum ent reads as under: “ 3.1 Term of Franchise for Food Plaza will be ( 9) Nine years. The Franchise m ay be renewed for anot her ( 3) t hree years at t he discret ion of I RCTC and t he decision of I RCTC in t his regard shall be final. Tot al t enure of t he Franchise shall not exceed 12 years in any case. I RCTC will not be obliged t o assign any reason what soever for not renewing t he Franchise.”

7. I t is t hus cont ended by learned Counsel for t he respondent s t hat ext ension for 3 years is at t he sole discret ion of t he I RCTC and decision of t he I RCTC 3 in t his regard is final as per t he t ender docum ent and pet it ioner had subm it t ed bid knowing fully well t hat he has no vest ed right t o claim ext ension upon expiry of t erm of 9 years. Thus he subm it s t hat t he cat ering policy relied upon by t he pet it ioner will not override t he condit ion m ent ioned in t he t ender docum ent .

8. We find subst ance in t he said subm ission. Since franchise was grant ed t o t he pet it ioner wit h t he express condit ion t hat he will not have any vest ed right of ext ension upon com plet ion of t erm of 9 years and ext ension shall be at t he sole discret ion of t he I RCTC, t herefore, pet it ioner does not have any legally enforceable right t o claim ext ension, even t hough his perform ance during t he period of franchise was sat isfact ory.

9. Mr. Lalit Sharm a, learned Counsel for t he respondent s, subm it s t hat fresh bids have been invit ed for t he grant of franchise on 29.4.2025. He subm it s t hat pet it ioner is at libert y t o part icipat e in t he bidding process and if he subm it s bids, his claim shall be considered on m erit s.

10. For t he aforesaid reasons, we do not find any reason t o int erfere in t he m at t er. Writ pet it ion t hus fails and is dism issed. ( A sh i sh N a i t h a n i , J.) ( M a n o j K u m a r Ti w a r i , J.) 2 3 .4 .2 0 2 5 Pr PRABODH KUMAR DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3a082a00a95aff911a9559743af8f21c5060 2ff6eae4e61af3aeab198d462503, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=0DC111E8D8CA66E16B940EFDF806 ACCC1AB588052DF6FCA58C67F3C91957BE53, cn=PRABODH KUMAR 4