SENIOR DIVISIONAL COMMERCIAL MANAGER & ORS versus S.C.R. CATERERS, DRY FRUITS, FRUIT JUICE STALLS WELFARE ASSOCIATION & ANR.

Citation: [2016] 1 S.C.R. 447 · Decided: 29-01-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V. GOPALA GOWDA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2016] I S.C.R. 44 7 
SENIOR DIVISIONAL COMMERCIAL MANAGER & ORS. 
A 
v. 
S.C.R. CArERERS, DRY FRUITS, FRUIT JUICE STALLS 
WELFARE ASSOCIATION & ANR. 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 618-620of2016) 
JANUARY 29, 2016 
(V. GO PALA GOWDA AND AMITAVA ROY, JJ.) 
Licence - Renewal of- Under Catering Policy, 2010 of Indian 
Railways - To the pre-exisling licencees - Permissihilily - Held: 
The provi.i·ions of the 2010 Policy are ~1pplicahle 10 !he pre-exisling 
licences ~Denial of rene11 1al <?f' licence lo the licencees JJre-existing 
"the 2010 Policy, would amounl lo deprivalion of their righl lo 
freedom <if occupation guarunleed u/Arl. 19(1){g) <if !he Co11stilulio11 
us well a right lo livelihood - Such ac/ion of" !he S!ale would be 
opposed to their constitutional duty toward1· social jus/ice and would 
be arbilrary, unreasonable, unji1ir and discrimina/ory - Conslitulion 
of" India, 1950 - Aris. 14, 19(/)(g), 21 and 38. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
B 
c 
D 
HELD: I. The Railway Board issued Commercial Circular . 
No. 37 dated 09.08.2010. This circular Clarifies that the renewal 
E 
of the license is ~equired to be granted to all the existing·Iicensees 
of the Minor Units as per clauses 16 and I 7 of the Catering Policy, 
·2010. It also becom.es clear that the existing licensees need not 
be included in the tender process._ Circular dated 23.08.2011 
. issued by the Chief Commercial Manager: of South Central Railway 
directed all the Divisional Commercial Managers and other 
subordinate officers of the South Central Railway to confirm that 
the tenure ufall GMUs and SMUs at "Al", "A" and "B" category 
stations shall be renewed after every 3 years on their satisfactory 
performance a.nd payment of all dues and arrears as per the 2010 
Policy. In view of the said circular, catering· licenses of all the 
members of the respondent Association were renewed till July 
2013. (Para 20] (461-E-H; 462-A( 
2. Article 14 of the Constitution of India mand:1tes that 
state action must not be arbitrary and discr}minatory. It must :~lso 
447 
F 
G 
448 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2016] I S.C.R. 
A 
not be guided by any extraneous considerations which are 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
antithetical to equality. [Para 20J1462-G-HJ 
R.D. Shelly v. International Airport Authority (1979) 3 
SCC 489: 1979 (3) SCR 1014 - relied on . 
.3. India is a welfare State. As per Article 38 of the 
Constitution, it is the duty of every welfare state to generate 
employment. The right to livelihood is a part of right to life. It is 
the duty of the state, acting through its instrumentalities to ensure 
that no person in a vulnerable position is exploited. This Court, 
being entrusted with the task of being the countermajoritarian 
institution, is duty bound to ensure that the rights of the 
downtrodden minorities and the members of the weaker sections 
of the society are not trampled upon. [Paras 21, 22 and 23) 
[463-C, F-G] [464-D-E] 
Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985) 3 
SCC 545:1985 (2) Suppl. SCR 51 - followed. 
Peoples Union for Democratic Rights & Ors. l( Union 
of India (1982) 3 SCC 235: 1983 (I) SCR 456- relied 
on. 
4. The Policy of not renewing the licenses of those persons 
who are members of the respondents are completely dependent 
on self-earning from these small units and making them 
participate in a public competition is absolutely nnfair, 
unreasonable and arbitrary. The chances of such persons being 
deprived of their right to livelihood is also an important factor 
which has to be taken into consideration by this Court to interpret 
the policy framed by the appellants. The callous attitnde as far as 
the inaction on the part of the State in tackling the problem of 
rising unemployment is appalling. The situation is made worse 
by the handing over of public functions to private entrepreneurs, 
which then exploit the policies of the Government against the 
poor and downtrodden. [Para 24][464-H; 465-A-BI 
5. If the appellants under the guise of the policy are 
permitted to deny renewal of licenses in favour of the licensees, 
it would amount to deprivation of their right to freedom of 
occupation guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution 
as well as the right to livelihood, which action of the appellan~ 
H would be diametrically opposed to their constitutional duty 
SR. DIVISIONAL COMMERCIAL MANAGER v. S.C.R. CATERERS, DRY 
449 
FRUITS, FRUIT JUICE STALLS WELFARE ASSN. 
towards social justice as well as uplifting the weaker sec

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.