Senior Divisional Commercial Manager v. S.C.R. Caterers

Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, C.J:— We have heard Sri. T.S Venkata Ramana, learned Standing Counsel for the appellants and have gone through the impugned judgment of the learned single judge.

2. It appears, the learned single judge recorded many a findings and observations while dealing with a batch of matters. However, while coming to the conclusion, the learned single judge has recorded as follows:

1. The members of the petitioner-Association shall make applications for renewal of their licences within one month from today.

2. Respondent No. 3 shall consider each of such applications with reference to paras 16.1.3 and 16.2.1, as the case may be, and communicate its decision to the members of the petitioner-Association.

3. In the event of rejection of the application of any of the licencees for renewal, respondent No. 3 shall record reasons therefor and communicate the same to the licencee concerned.

4. Till completion of the above mentioned process, the members of the petitioner-Association shall be permitted to continue to run their respective GMUs and SMUs.

3. Learned Standing Counsel for the appellants submits that the conditions stipulated in paras 16.1.3 and 16.2.1 of Catering Policy, 2010 (for short ‘the 2010 Policy) are not applicable in these cases. We are of the view that though the learned single judge has initially said that those paras are applicable, however, at the end, the learned single judge has clearly stated that the applications of the members of the respondent-petitioner-Association may be considered with reference to paras 16.1.3 and 16.2.1 of 2010 Policy. Therefore, conclusive finding has been recorded by the learned single judge. Under the circumstances, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge.

4. However, we clarify that any observation and finding made by the learned Single Judge with regard to the merits of the matters, may not be binding on the appellants at the time of consideration of the cases of the members of the respondent-petitioner-Association if the same is contrary to and inconsistent with the judgment of the learned single judge. Except giving such clarification to the said order of the learned single judge, the writ appeals are not admitted.

5. The writ appeals are accordingly dismissed. Consequently, the interim applications, if any pending, shall also stand dismissed. No costs.