Delhi High Court · 2025-12-17
MS RAJKUMAR JAISWAL CANTEEN AND CONTRACTOR vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
- Citation / case number
- W.P.(C)-19019/2025 2025:DHC:11522
- Court
- Delhi High Court
- Petitioner
- MS RAJKUMAR JAISWAL CANTEEN AND CONTRACTOR
- Respondent
- UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Judgment text excerpt
$~68 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision:17.12.2025 + W.P.(C) 19019/2025 & CM APPL. 79242/2025 MS RAJKUMAR JAISWAL CANTEEN AND CONTRACTOR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Prateek Raj and Mr. Ashutosh Bhardwaj, Advocates Mob: 9873388834 Email: [email protected] versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Saumya Tandon, CGSC with Mr Gaurav Singh, Adv. (Through VC) CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA MINI PUSHKARNA, J. (Oral): 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with respect to the General Minor Unit (“GMU”)/Stall No. 134/2019, at Platform No. 04/05 at Prayagraj Railway Station. It is submitted that the Letter of Award dated 12th August, 2020 was issued by the respondent – Divisional Railway Manager’s Office, North Central Railway, Prayagraj, by way of which, the said catering stall was allotted in favour of the petitioner, for a period of five years, w.e.f., 20th December, 2020. The said License, as per the Master License Agreement dated 21st May, 2021 is set to expire on 19th December, 2025. 2. It is submitted that this Court, on previous occasions, has granted relief in similar matters, wherein, extension has been granted, even beyond Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Page 1 of 5 By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Date:17.12.2025 20:06:36 the “dies non” period. Attention of this Court has been drawn to the order dated 07th March, 2025, passed by the Predecessor Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) 2953/2025, titled as “Sadeek Ali Versus Union of India and Ors.”, wherein, further extension of 7 months has been granted to the petitioner therein. Attention of this Court has also been drawn to other similar orders passed in other petitions. 3. Thus, it is submitted that the license period of the petitioner i