Madhya Pradesh High Court
Laxminarain Deohare And Etc. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 4 November, 1999
Equivalent citations: AIR2000MP175, AIR 2000 MADHYA PRADESH 175
Author: Dipak Misra
Bench: Dipak Misra
JUDGMENT Dipak Misra, J.
1. Both the writ petitions being interlinked and inter-connected were heard analogously and are disposed of by this common order. In W. P. No. 3297/99 the challenge is to the grant of catering licences relating to Platform Nos. 1, 4 and 5 of the Itarasi Railway Station on various grounds, whereas the challange in W. P. No. 4224/99 is on a limited spectrum.
2. Before the crux in both the writ petitions is uncurtained, it is necessary, nay, requisite, to unfurl and unfold the factual backdrop as that portrays a different scene altogether. It is well known that the Railway is a large organisation and the Itarasi Railway Station is one of the biggest junction and caters to public at large. To maintain the quality of supply of food and to get the best caterer the railway administration published an advertisement on 26-9-1997 in National Mail Bhopal inviting applications for award of a catering licence for stalls to be situated at platform Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. Many applications submitted their applications with necessary documents and an interview was held in respect of the candidates in question but one Robin Jyothiraj James could not receive the letter of interview on due date for which he visited this Court in W. P. No. 83/ 99. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and upon pcrsual of the documents this Court directed as under :--
"So far as the petitioner is concerned, he approached this Court, by means of the present petition, on 5th February, 1999 and we consider the facts and circumstances of the case that the petitioner is entitled for being interviewed so to have opportunity of participation in the process relating to the catering licence. So far as the candidates who have not approached this Court till today are concerned, they are not entitled for being called for interview, as it is a settled principle of law that those who sleeps over their right they are not entitled for the sympathy of the Court.
In view of above, we direct the respondent No. 1, Divisional Railway Manager (Commercial Branch). Bhopal for arranging for the interview of the petitioner who shall appear before the respondent No.1 along with the application duly accompanied by the certified copy of this order on 15th February. 1999 during the hours 10 to 12 A. M. in his office and he would be given in writing a date, time and place for interview and the entire process regarding selection of catering stall licence at Itarsi Railway Junction shall be finalised by the concerned persons by 15th of March, 1999 without fail and a copy of the finalised proceeding shall be filed before this Court on 22nd March, 1999."
After this direction was issued, the railway administration conducted an interview in respect of Robin Jyoti James. The Selection Committee which was constituted in accordance with the policy in vogue did not find Robin Jyoti James suitable. It is worth noting that platforms Nos. 1, 4 and 5 were reserved for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes but the Committee did not find anyone suitable for the platform No. 1 as well for the platform Nos. 4 and 5. At this juncture, certain complaints, were sent to the Ministry of Railways and the Railway Board. As a result of which a direction was given for review of the matter and accordingly, a Senior Grade Administrative Officers Committee was constituted and the selection was made. The said selection committee selected respondent No.3, Smt. Kanti Arya in respect of the plateform Nos. 4 and 5 and Smt. Suchita Uike. respondent No.4 in respect of the plateform No. 1. This selection is the subject-matter of challenge in W. P. No. 3297/99. As far as W. P. No. 4224/99 is concerned the challenge is to the non-selection of the petitioner therein at the first instance.
3. Before I advert to deal with the various documents, minutes of discussion brought on record and contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties, I would deal with W. P. No. 4224/99. Mr. J. P. Sanghi, Mr. S. K. Mukherjee and Mr. Ravindra Shrivastava, learned counsel for the respondents stated at the threshold that they have not filed any return. Mr. Mukherjee, learned counsel for the Railways submitted that the return would be necessary as he has the minutes of the Committee. Mr. S. K. Gangele, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the claim of the petitioner has been erroneolusly adjudicated by the Selection Committee on the first occasion and, therefore, he has the right to challenge the same.
4. To appreciate the aforesaid submission I have perused the minutes of the Selection Committee as far as the petitioner Laxminarain Deohare is concerned. It reads as under :
" iii). Jai Bhim Caterers, Itarasi, Prop. Shri Laxmi Narayan Deohare :
Shri Laxmi Narayan Deohare has mentioned that he is the proprietor of Jai Bhim Caterers/Itarasi. When he was asked about the functioning of his firm, he replied that he organises 'khana' to his community members at the time of festivals, etc. As regards catering experience, he has submitted certificates about working as Catering Manager in Sahni Tent House, Itarasi and also Assistant Manager in Hotel President, Itarasi.
The Committee noted that in the Sahni Tent House certificate (p-119) the period of his working has been shown as 5 years whereas in the certificate submitted at the time of interview (p-162), the period is shown as 5-12-1995 to 12-12-1996 (p. 162) only. Asked about this aspect, the applicant could not give convincing reply. The Committee in order to know his knowledge about catering, asked him to mention, ingredients for preparing tea and also puri bhaji. He had no clue. During the interview the applicant also mentioned that he owns 'Dhoomketu Hotel and sells 'Samosa Kachori'. However,- he could not give satisfactory replies about these two items also. Asked as to why he left the catering jobs, i.e. whether he left himself or was removed, he could not give convicing answers. Shri Deohare also mentioned that he was the President of Dr. Ambedkar Eing Bhatta Udyog Sahkari Samiti, Itarasi and spent his most of the time in, managing the affairs of the Samiti.
In view of the above, the Committee feels that Shri Deohare cannot be considered suitable for award of this licence ".
On a persual of the aforesaid reasoning as has been given by the Selection Committee, there remains no iota of doubt that the case of the petitioner did not deserve consideration. It is apparent he was not able to answer about the ingredients for preparing tea and also 'puri bhaji'. He was also not able to answer satisfactorily about certain items of food. Hence, the Committee rejected his candidature. In absence of any error on the part of the Railways, I am of the considered view that the writ petition is sans merit and is hereby dismissed in limine.
5. Now I shall advert to deal with the controversy raised in W. P. No. 3297/99. The main ground of the assailment is that the selection is absolutely erroneous in law and by such selection the petitioners have been deprived of the opportunity to participate. Mr. Dixit, learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that this Court had directed for holding of interview of Robin Jyoti James and to finalise the selection. It is also his submission that in compliance with the order of this Court the interview should have been conducted and the licence in question could have been awarded to the most suitable candidate but there was no justification on the part of the higher authorities to intervene the matter of selection, more so, when the Selection Committee had ascribed adequate reasons for not finding are candidate suitable for the platform Nos. 1, 4 and 5. It is further proposed by Mr. Dixit that even if the authorities had the jurisdiction to convene a meeting for re-appreciating the material on record, the same is not founded on a proper base inasmuch as the reasons given by the Senior Grade Administrative Officers Committee is not germane to the issue and, infact, the said Committee has travelled beyond its authority. It is also canvassed by him that the railway administration has abdicated its objective approach and succumbed to the extraneous pressure as a result of which an unwarranted decision has been arrived at which requires to be lanceted by this Court in exercise of its extra-ordinary Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is further canvassed by Mr. Dixit that the guideline which was prescribed at level of the Minister for revewing the matter, namely, the delay in allotment would be hazardous to public interest has really not been sanguinely appreciated by the Selection Committee and, therefore, the selection made by the second committee is sensitively susceptible. While challeging the action of the railway authorities in this manner the learned counsel has also contended that if the original assessment of the first committee could not have been allowed to stand, it was apposite on the part of the Railways to issue a fresh advertisement and in that case the petitioners would have got an opportunity to apply for grant of the licences but because of the extraneous pressure for the re-selection they have been deprived of the opportunity to apply and that offends the equality clause enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution and the whole action smacks of arbitrariness which is loathed under the conscience of Article 14 of the Constitution. It is also highlighted by the learned counsel that the concept of legitimate expectation has been recognised as a part and parcel of the fundamental rights but the railway administration by taking recourse to the process of reselection has nipped the said expectation in the bud and such an action cannot be countenanced in law.
6. Mr. Mukherjee, learned counsel appearing for the Railways combating the aforesaid submission of Mr. Dixit has canvassed that the petitioners have no locus standi to file a writ petition inasmuch as they were not applicants in the previous occasion and hence, the present petition is not tenable. It is also urged by him that the higher authorities have been appointed for supervision and if they have taken note of the grievances raised before and considered the factual backdrop in proper perspective and have directed for reconsideration, there is no error in such an act. and no fault can be found with it. It is also argued by Mr. Mukherjee that the higher authorities had not directed for grant licences, so that mala fide can be attributed but on the contrary, they had directed for reconsideration which shows their bona fide and genuineness and hence, interference by this Court is not warranted. It is also submitted by him that the selection of the respondents Nos. 3 and 4 are in the public interest and there is no irrationality or illegality in such selection, and this Court should be slow to interfere in exercise of its extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Mr. Mukherjee has also canvassed that by grant of such licences to the respondents no public interest has been hampered and when the public interest remains unimpaired intact this Court ordinarily should not interfere and, more so, when the decision does not expose perversity of approach.
7. Mr. J. P. Sanghi, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4. who has been granted licence for the platform No. 1, has contended that the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the application as he is not a person aggrieved. It is also his contention that the petitioner has no experience whatsover, and even if he would have been allowed to come into the fray there would not have been much change in the result and, therefore, this Court should not interfere. It is also highted by Mr. Sanghi that unless public interest is jeopardised by any action of the government or any public authority, invocation of jurisdiction under Article 226 is ordinarily unwarranted. It is urged by him that as the petitioner does not have any experience, he, being ineligible, cannot come forward to assail the selection. Mr. Sanghi, to bolster his submission has placed heavy reliance on the decision rendered in the case of Calcutta Gas Company v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1962 SC 1044. Mr. Sanghi has contended that if the petitioners are aggreived by any of the act of the railway administration they could have filed a suit for damages. To buttress this proposition he has referred to the decision rendered in the case of M. M. Parikh, Income-tax Officer, Special Investigation Circle-B. Ahemdabad v. Navanagar Transport and Industries Ltd. AIR 1967 SC 823.
8. Mr. Ravindra Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3, who is the allottee in respect of the plateform Nos. 4 and 5, while supporting the contention of Mr. Sanghi and resisting the contentions of Mr. Dixit has advanced his contention that the petitioners by no stretch of imagination can termed as the person aggreived. To buttress the aforesaid submission he has placed heavy reliance on the decision rendered in the case of Jasbhi Motibhai Desal v. Roshan Kumar, AIR 1976 SC 578.
Quite apart from the above Mr. Shrivastava has also placed reliance on the decision rendered in the case of Tata Cellular v. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 11 to highlight the concept of judicial review is limited and on the obtaining factual matrix exercise of Judicial review is absolutely unwarranted. The learned counsel has also referred to a recent decision rendered in the case of Raunaq International Limited v. I. V. R. Construction Ltd. AIR 1999 SC 393 to high light that unless there is overwhelming circumstance in the public interest, the Court should not interfere as the public interest has to be given paramount consideration.
9. Before I proceed to deal with regard to the justifiability and defensibility of the grant of licence in favour of the respondents No. 3 and 4, it is appropriate to decide the issue relating to locus standi of the petitioners. It is not disputed that the petitioners had not applied when applications were invited at the first instance. This Court on the earlier occasion remanded the matter. Initially the Selection Committee did not find anyone suitable. If the decision of the first committee would have been honoured then the whole selection process would have become open and a fresh advertisement would have been published inviting applications and in that event the petitioners would have been entitled to apply. Submission of Mr. Dixit is that by virtue of the intervention at the level of the Minister a process of re-apprectation of materials on record was undertaken and such re-appreciation being absolutely perverse being based on extraneous consideration ostracising the mandate of the policy deserves to be interfered with. It is urged by him that due to this illegality, the licences which would have been granted after initiating the process from the very beginning, has been given a go by as a result of which the aspirants like the petitioners have been denied the opportunity to apply and hence, the petitioners have the locus standi to approach this Court for infringement of their rights. Learned counsel has also argued that the reasons given by the second committee are not in consonance with the requirements as envisaged in the policy and expose the perversity in the decision making process as discretion has been exercised in an unfettered manner without keeping in view the public good. Colossus objections have been raised by Mr. J. P. Sanghi, Mr. S. K. Mukharjee and Mr. Ravjndra Shrivastava with regard to the locus standi of the petitioners if I may say so, the concept of locus standi has been high lighted as if it is a locus travelling unruly. The question that arises for determination is whether the petitioners would come in the category of persons aggreived. On a perusal of the writ petition it appears that the petitioners have averred that the applicants are eligible and qualified for grant of licence. True it is they had not applied for grant of licence on the first occasion. But it does not necessarily mean that they were debarred to apply on subsequent occasion. If the selection would have matured on the first occasion and would have come to its logical end, then possibly the petitioner would have not Been in a position to agitate their grievance whatsover, but the facts brought on record portray a different scenario. Thus, legality of the selection on the second occasion by adopting process of re-appreciation can be questioned by the petitioners, under Article 226 of the Constitution.
10. Now to the rival submissions on merits. At the very outset, it is apposite to refer to certain decisions governing the field. In the case Breen v. Amalgamated Engineering, (1971)1 All ER 1148, Lord Denning in his inimitable style 1 All E. Reporter 1148 expressed thus :
"There is nothing like unfettered discretion immuned from judicial reviewabllity."
In the case of Kasturilal v. State of J & K, AIR 1980 SC 1992 the Apex Court highlighted that in conferment of state largesse there is involvement of public interest. Validity of grant is to be tested on the anvil of reasonableness and public interest. In the case of State of U.P. v. Renusagar Power Co., AIR 1988 SC 1737 the Apex Court laid emphasis on exercise of power whether legislative or administrative is bound to be set aside there is manifest error if exercise of such power is perceptibly arbitrary. It can be expressed therein that if irrelevant considerations have been given undue weightage, the discretion vested in an authority amounts to abuse of the said power. In this context, I may profitably refer to the decision rendered in the case of Chief Constable of North Wales Police v. Evans, (1982)3 All ER 141 wherein Lord Brightman expressed thus :
"Judicial review, as the words imply is not an appeal from a decision, but a review of the matter in which the decision was made."
11. In this context it is apposite to refer to a passage from the decision rendered in the case of Mahabir Auto Stores v. Indian Oil Corporation. AIR 1990 SC 1031 wherein the Apex Court laid down as under :
" The State acts in its executive power under Article 298 of the Constitution in entering or not entering in contract with individual parties. Article 14 of the Constitution would be applicable to those exercise of power. Therefore, the action of State organ can be checked under Article 14. Every action of the State Executive Authority must be subject to rule of law and must be informed by reason. So, whatever, be the activity of the public authority, it should meet the test of Article 14 of the Constitution. If a governmental action even in the matters of entering or not entering into contracts, fails to satisfy the test of reasonableness, the same would be unreasonable. Rule of reason and rule against arbitrariness and discrimination, rules of fair play and natural Justice are part of the rule of law applicable in situation or action by State instrumentality in dealing with the citizens. Even though the rights of the citizens are in the nature of contractual rights, the manner, the method and motive of a decision of entering into a contract, are subject to judicial review on the touchstone of relevance and reasonableness, fair play, natural justice, equality and non-discrimination. It is well settled that there can be "malice in law". Existence of such "malice in law." is part of the critical appartus of a particular action in administrative law. Indeed "malice in law" is part of the dimension of the rule of relevance and reason as well as the rule of fair play in action."
Mr. Shrivastava has pointed out that there has to have fair-paly in the governmental action and the power of judicial review has to be exercised if government has exercised the power in a palpably arbitrary manner. Submission of Mr. Shrivastava is that if the power has not been in an unfair manner and there has been acceptable fairplay in the action of the government, the same should not be reviewed by the Court as that would amount to taking a decision in appeal. This Court is conscious that while adjudicating the matter relating to award of contract or licence Court is not required sit in appeal but has to appreciate the decision making process. At this juncture, I may refer to the decision rendered in the case of State of U.P. v. Dharmander Prasad Singh. AIR 1989 SC 997 wherein their Lordship of the Apex Court expressed thus :
"Judicial review under Article 226 cannot be converted into an appeal. Judicial review is directed, not against the decision, but is confined to the examination of the decision making process. When the issues raised in the judicial review is whether a decision is vitiated by taking into account relevant factors or is so manifestly unreasonable that no reasonable authority, entrusted with the power in question could reasonably have made such a decision, the judicial review of the decision making process includes examination, as a matter of law, of the relevance of the factors."
12. The learned counsel for the respondents have placed heavy reliance in paragraph 113 of the case of Tata Cellular (AIR 1996 SC 11) (supra) wherein the Apex Court laid down the following principles :
"113. The principles educible from the above are :
(1) 'The modern trend points to judicial restraint administrative action.
(2) The Court does not sit as a Court of appeal but merely reviews the manner in which the decision was made.
(3) The Court does not have the expertise to correct the administrative decision. If a review of the administrative decision is permitted it will be substituting its own decision, without the necessary experience which itself may be fallible.
(4) The terms of the invitation to tender cannot be open to judicial scrutiny because the invitation to tender is in the realm of contract. Normally speaking, the decision to accept the tender or award the contract is reached by process of negotiations through several tiers. More often than not, such decisions are made qualitatively by experts.
(5) The government must have freedom of contract. In other words, a fair play in the joints is a necessary concomitant for an administrative body functioning in an administrative sphere or quasi-administrative Sphere. However, the decision must riot only be tested by the application of Wednesbury principles or reasonableness (including its other facts pointed out above) but must be free from arbitrariness not affected by bias or actuated by mala fides. (6) Quashing decisions may impose heavy administrative burden on the administrative and lead to increased and unbudgeted expenditure."
It is worth mentioning while delineating their Lordships in paragraph 85 of the said judgment have laid down as under : "85. It cannot be denied that the principles of judicial review would apply to the exercise of contractual powers by Government bodies in order to prevent arbitrariness or favouritism. However, it must be clearly stated that there are inherent limitations in exercise of that power of Judicial review. Government is the guardian of finances of the State. It is expected to protect the financial interest of the State. The right to refuse the lowest or any other tender is always available to the Government. But the principles laid down in Article 14 of the Constitution have to be kept in view while accepting or refusing a tender. There can be no question of infringement of Article 14 if the Government tries to get the best person or the best quotation. The right to choose cannot be considered to be an arbitrari power. Of course, if the said power is exercised for any collateral purpose the exercise of that power will be struck down."
I would be failing in my duty if I do not refer to the recent decision rendered in the case of Raunaq International (AIR 1999 SC 393) (supra) wherein the Apex Court has given emphasis on the concept of public interest. In paragraph 11 of the aforesaid decision their Lordships opined that the Court must be satisfied if there is some eiement of public interest involved in entertaining such a petition. From the aforesaid enunciation of law. It becomes plain as noon day that if a decision is irrational, unreasonable, imprudent and against the public interest the Court should step in and interfere.
13. The selection which is under challenge, has to be tested on the touchstone of the aforesaid parameters. It is to be noticed that initially the Selection Committee did not find the respondents Nos. 3 and 4 suitable but later on being instructed by the higher authority the Senior Grade Administrative Committee thought it opposite to grant licences in favour of the respondents Nos. 4 and 5. The question that arises for determination is whether such a grant is permissible and such grant has the sanction of law. To appreciate this it would be apposite to refer the letter dated 30-3-98 insued by Mr. S. K. Malik, Executive Director (Catering and Tourism) to the Chief Commercial Manager contained in Annexure R-2. The relevant portion of it reads as follows :
"Minister of Railway for State has received some complaints regarding the awarding of catering of contracts at Itarasi station which have been finalised recently. In view of the above, it is requested that a complete review of the award of the contracts may be carried out to ascertain whether the proceedings are in order and in accordance with prescribed procedure and policy guidelines. A report on this may be prepared and shown to your General Manager and sent to the Board before 3rd April, 1999. You may also please be prepared to be available at Board's Office at short notice to explain the position to MOS (R)."
A second letter was issued dated 1-6-99 by the same person contained in Annexure R-1. The relevant portion of it reads as under:
"With reference to your letter No. C810.F.445 Renewal EET dated 23-4-99, MOS(R) has observed that the procedure of inviting applications de novo for reserved categories would be time consuming besides bad publicity. It would, therefore, be desirable that stalls are allotted from amongst existing applicants and catering/vending facilities to passengers provided without further loss of time.
MOS(R) has therefore directed as under :
'Railway may therefore review the pro-ceedings through a SAG Committee and select the best amongst the applicants for these 2 cases. Enough safeguard could be built in the conditions while making the offer to ensure good quality service to the passangers. Report compliance within 30 days.
Necessary action may be taken accordingly for the two catering stalls reserved for ST (on platform No. 1) and for SC (on plat-
form No. 4/5)."
These letters gave rise to constitution of a Senior Grade Administrative Officers Committee. Before I refer to the report of the Second Committee I am obligated to refer to the reasoning of the First Committee. The First Committee while dealing with the case of Smt. Kanti Arya, the respondent No. 3 formed the following opinion :
"(11) Smt. Kanti Arya/Bhopal :
Smt. Kanti Arya is a catering licensee at Bhopal station holding one unit value. The Committee asked Mrs. Arya as to how she would manage the catering stall at Itarasi.
She replied that it will be managed by her husband. When she was asked as to why her husband did not apply himself, she applied that Railways had asked experience and her husband had no experience. Moreover, he did not have time as he was involved in political activities, she further informed. Her replies about the management of her stall at Bhopal were also not very satisfactory as she was not even aware of the unit value of her licence. The Committee went through the history sheet of her licence at Bhopal which was also not very encouraging as there were cases of Irregularities wherein the licencee had been warned and fined. The Committee feels that she is not suitable a for giving another licence at an important station like Itarsi."
While dealing with the case of Smt. Sucheta Uike, respondent No. 4 the Committee opined as under :
"(ii) Smt. Sucheta Uike, Itarsi :
She did not attend the interview.
To show her experience incatering, Smt. Sucheta Uike who is wife of Shri Pratap Singh Uike, MLA from Ghoradonngari, Distt. Betul has submitted a certificate from Nalanda Hotel and Restaurant at Bhopal saying that she conducted catering work in the Hotel for 3 years (p 46). The other certificates i.d. given by local M.P. (p.50). MLA (p.49), Lions India, Itarsi (p.48) and Rotary Club. Itarsi (p.47) do not clearly indicate as to what type of catering work she has been conducting for many years, i.e. whether she has been running a hotel/restaurant or a kitchen has not been mentioned in the certificates nor by her anywhere in her application. It is evident from her application that she has not taken any formal diploma or certificate in catering business. Thus, her reputation and experience incatering business is not adequately established and she is not considered suitable for award of this licence."
The Selection Committee as per the railways policy did not found them suitable. After the matter was directed to be reconsiered the second Selection Committee considered the case of Smt. Sucheta Uike and observed as under :
"However, regarding the candidature of Smt. Sucheta Uike, the Committee feels that she can be given a chance as she has both experience as well as financial credentials. even though she does not have any diploma in catering. While it is a fact that she does not have qualification incatering, the committee is of the view that this alone need not be a criterion for outright rejection of her candidature. Therefore, the committee recommends for a limited period of one year. The Committee also recommends that the extension beyond one year should be considered personally by DRM on the basis of her satisfactory performance report by Sr. DCM. which should be based oh periodical inspections. The committee also recommends that the stall should be inspected by the Commercial & Medical Officers of HQ & Divisions regularly, with a view to ensure proper upkeep and maintenance standards of cleanliness, hygiene, not adulteration etc."
14. As far as the case of Kanti Arya is concerned, the Committee observed thus :
"However, in the case of Smt. Kanti Arya, the Selection Committee has rejected her candidature on the basis of :
(a) Who will manage the catering stall at Itarsi?
(b) Past performance of her licence at BPL.
The Committee noted that there are number of instances where, allotment of the stall has been done in more than one place. Hence, it is felt that this cannot be a reason for outright rejection. As far as past performance at BPL is concerned, the Licensee has been already warned and fined. But the cases have not been considered serious enough to warrant termination of licence."
15. At this juncture it is apposite to refer to the Catering Policy on India Railways which has been brought on reord as Annex-ure R-3/2. The relevant clauses of the policy are as follows :
" 1. Application :
(a) Catering/vending licences should be awarded by calling applications. Tender system for selection of licencees shall not be followed. Applications should be invited only from professional and reputed caterers through press advertisement.
Application received in response to the advertisement shall be scrutinised by a Screening Committee consisting of three officers of not less than Senior Scale Officers in respect of other units. The Screening Committee shall shortlist the applicants keeping in mind following factors :
(i) Reputation/business standing of the applicant;
(ii) Turnover of the applicant's business;
(iii) Catering experience of the applicant.
(iv) Financial standing of the applicant;
(v) Size of the establishment and staff required for unit;
(v) Location of the unit/units; and
(vi) Any other factor considered relevant by the Screening Committee.
3. Preferences :
There shall be no reservation of preference for any category in award of contracts and the basic criteria should be capability, reputation, experience and track record of the party to give requisite standard of food and service to the passangers. However, in case of small roadside stations, preference will be given to Scheduled Castes and Sched-uled Tribes candidates. Zonal Railways should make out inlist of such stations and sent a copy of the same to the Board."
On a perusal of the same it appears that emphasis is to be given on professional and reputed caterers having expertise and track record.
16. On a perusal of the analysis and reasonings recorded by the First Committee and the Second Committee, it is crystal clear that the First Committee had given emphasis on experience in adjudging the suitability of the candidates keeping in view the conscience of the policy and concluded that the respondents Nos. 3 and 4 were not suitable. It is noteworthy that the said Committee has categorically held that the candidates had no real experience. From the analysis made by the Committee it is quite clear that it had kept the mandate of the policy in mind and rejected the ad hoc and lackadaisical approach of the candidates. Recently this Court in the case of Brijbhal Singh v. Union of India. (W.P. No. 3186/99) has delt with the concept of catering in the following terms : .
"The dictionary meaning of the word 'catering' is that catering is the activity of providing food and drink for a place such as an office or for special occasions such as weddding and parties (Collins and Cobuild). In the Cambridge International Disctionary of English the word 'cater' means to provide and sometimes serve, food. In the New Oxford Dictionary the word 'cater' means provide with food and drink, typically at social events and in a professional capacity.
Appreciating the aforesaid meaning of the term in its proper cannotatlve expression, a caterer has to be a person who has catering experience in the field of his managerial expertise and not the person who owns the property or for that matter who serves at the table. It is well known, catering order is placed with the manager of an hotel who manages the entire catering and therefore, it is playing possum that a manager cannot be conferred the benefit of experience of catering."
Tested on the anvil of aforesaid, it is apparent that the respondents Nos. 3 and 4, as observed by the First Committee did not have much catering experience. That apart, they were not sure of management and they had no good reputation. Hence, the decision of the First Committee was not in violation of the policy and their conclusions are not contrary to the materials on record. Thus, the reasonings given by the original committee were quite sound and they have not been duly met with by the Senior Grade Administrative Committee but it has proceeded to decide the matter in a different manner, which are not germane to the policy and in fact, are contrary to the mandate of the policy. When the policy stipulates that there has to have experience, and there has to have good track-record and respondents Nos. 3 and 4 were found unfit by the Selection Committee because of their mercurial approach to the field of catering as they were not able to putforth the desired experience and, as an actual fact there is no experience. I am of the considered view that the second Selection Committee could not have granted licences in their favour. May be, there was direction from the higher authorities to re-| consider the matter but the reconsideration should have been done in consonance with the requirement of the policy but not in flagrant violation of the same.
17. In this context, I may profitably refer to the observations of this Court in this case of Mahendra Kumar Tiwari v. Union of India, (W.P. No. 1864/97) : (reported in AIR 1998 Madh Pra 178). It reads thus :
"12. Before we part with this case we must state that the large number of people travelling in the Railways expect a fair deal from the Railways. Having full faith in the Railway Administration people consume food supplied by the caterers engaged by the railway administration. If a licensee has been found not up to the standard and his performance has been found dissatisfactory it is not expected on the part of the Railway Administration to give indulgence to an individual at the cost of the collective causing jeopardy to the public at large. It is to be borne in mind that in matters of this nature individual interest has to play a secondary role to the collective good and an insufferable peril cannot be countenanced for pyramiding the prosperity of an individual."
In view of the aforesaid analysis writ petition No. 3297/99 succeeds and is hereby allowed and the catering licences granted in favour of the respondents Nos. 3 and 4 are hereby quashed.
18. Mr. Sanghi, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 has submitted that the amount deposited with regard to premium and security, may be directed to be refunded. Keeping in view the totality of averments, it is directed that the Railway shall do the needful. In view of this there has to be a fresh advertisement within a period of six weeks and selection process shall be finalised within a period of three months. It is expected that the Railway Administration shall objectively assess the suitability of the candidates and select the best candidates.
19. Before I part with this case, I express my sincere and deep appreciation for the assistance rendered by Mr. J. P. Sanghi, Mr. S.K. Mukherjee, Mr. Ravindra Shrivastava, and Mr. D. K. Dixit. learned counsel for the parties.
20. The writ petitions are accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.