Telangana High Court Dismisses Railway Caterer's Plea Against Licence Termination
The Telangana High Court has recently dismissed a writ petition filed by a railway caterer challenging the termination of his licence for operating a tea stall at Kacheguda railway station. The court ruled that the constitutional right to earn a livelihood cannot provide a shield for poor service or exploitation of passengers.
Court's Judgment on Constitutional Rights and Service Standards
In his judgment dated January 8, 2026, Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka observed that while the principles of social justice and right to livelihood are significant, they cannot be invoked to protect practices such as overcharging passengers or repeated violations of service standards. The court emphasized that such practices adversely affect the travelling public and tarnish the image of Indian Railways.
The petition was filed by Shaik Khader Basha, who operated the tea stall at Kacheguda railway station. Basha claimed that the termination of his Special Minor Unit (SMU) licence violated his constitutional rights under Articles 19(1)(g) and 21, which guarantee the right to practice any profession and protect personal liberty.
Repeated Penalties and Contractual Breaches
Deputy Solicitor General N Bhujanga Rao, representing the Centre and South Central Railway, contended before the court that the renewal of a licence is not a matter of right under the Master Licence Agreement or Catering Policy-2010. It is strictly subject to satisfactory performance during the contract tenure.
Rao submitted that between July 2022 and July 2025, the petitioner was penalized six times for deficiencies including overcharging and deviation from service standards. In several instances, the petitioner delayed payment of penalties, thereby committing breach of contractual obligations.
The court noted that under Paragraph 17.1 of the Catering Policy-2010, penalties on more than five occasions mandate rejection of licence renewal. The termination order was issued on November 21, 2025, based on documented unsatisfactory performance and public complaints.
Court's Findings on Due Process and Future Eligibility
Justice Bheemapaka found that the termination decision was traceable to statutory policy provisions and contractual clauses, and therefore could not be termed arbitrary. The court dismissed the petitioner's contention that the show-cause notice and termination order contained identical reasoning, observing that this does not vitiate the decision when objective material exists.
The court also clarified that the termination pertains only to the current licence and is based on documented unsatisfactory performance. Importantly, the petitioner has not been blacklisted or debarred and remains eligible to participate in future catering tenders.
In its concluding remarks, the court stated that the action of the respondents was justified in light of the Catering Policy-2010, Master Licence Agreement, Commercial Circular No. 22 of 2017, inspection records, penalty history, and due process. The petition was dismissed as devoid of merits, with no finding of arbitrariness or constitutional violations.
