Delhi High Court delivers a significant judgement in the case concerning the renewal dispute under the Catering Policy 2017. The court examined the rights of vendors in the face of Clause 11 of the policy, citing concerns about competition and economic duress. Drawing from precedents like Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corpn., the court’s decision holds implications for small vendors operating under the policy.
Arguments
- The petitioners are contesting the denial of renewal or extension of their licenses under the Catering Policy 2017.
- They argue that Clause 11 of the policy infringes upon their rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution by preventing renewal and forcing them to compete against larger entities.
- The petitioners claim that they were coerced and under economic duress while signing the license agreement, citing an unequal bargaining position with the railways.
- They rely on previous cases like Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corpn., Consumer Education & Research Centre v. Union of India, South Central Railways (supra), and Vendors Cooperative Society v. Union Of India to support their arguments.
Analysis
- The licenses held by the petitioners are subject to the terms and conditions outlined in their respective licenses and Catering Policy 2017.
- The licenses have been extended on account of a force majeure event – government imposed lockdown due to Covid-19.
- Petitioners participated in the tender knowing the tenure would be for 5 years with no extension/renewal.
- A license only gives the right to use the grantor’s property, and it is revocable at the grantor’s will.
- A writ of Mandamus cannot be issued to direct the respondents to enact laws or frame rules under Article 226 of the Constitution.
- Individual license agreements and Catering Policy 2017 have an arbitration clause for grievances due to insufficient extension or claims for damages.
- No merit found in the current petitions, they are dismissed.
- Petitioners are granted 3 months to vacate catering units for making alternative vending arrangements.
- Transition period subject to payment of usual license fee.
- All pending applications are also disposed of.
Decision
- Present petitions are held to be maintainable
- Renewal of License 14 approved
Case Title: PARVAT SINGH YADAV Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. (2024:DHC:4476)
Case Number: W.P.(C)-3364/2024
