Only Rail Neer at Railway Stations gets Bombay High Court nod

Only Rail Neer at Railway Stations gets Bombay High Court nod

Mumbai: The Bombay High Court recently upheld a circular issued by Indian Railwaysdirecting contractors and caterers having stalls on platforms and railway stations to stock and sell only ‘Rail Neer’ — packaged drinking water supplied by the IRCTC.

While dismissing the petition filed by Indian Railway Caterer’s Association, a division bench of justice SC Dharmadhikari and justice BP Colabawala on Monday said: “Good, clean, hygienic food and drinking water is an objective the railways want to achieve. Therefore, they procured the packaged drinking water under the brand “Rail Neer” manufactured by the IRCTC. We do not see how the petitioners can complain. Their right to deal with and carry on business with railways is in no way being affected.”

The association claimed that by compulsion, the railways are monopolizing supply of drinking water. Further, the compulsion to procure and supply drinking water only from the catering corporation is violative of mandate of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. The restriction placed is not reasonable and violative of mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It was also argued that as petitioners’ members will not be able to stock and supply packaged or bottled drinking water of the brands duly approved by the railways, the choice of consumers will also be restricted.

Additional solicitor general appearing for the railways opposed the plea saying that “There is a clear policy evolved by the railways as regards to supply/sale of packaged drinking water to commuters, since 2001. The implementation was in phases. Now, the railways are confident that the demand for packaged drinking water could be met departmentally or from the sources such as IRCTC alone. Therefore, the right to carry on business of stall owners is neither interfered nor restricted. None can claim a fundamental right to sell food products or drinking water of the choice of licensee and not of the authorities like the railways.”

Singh also informed the court that since the stall owners had stocked up bottle water of other brands, the railway can consider its representation and allow them to clear the stock until then it would not impose penalty or take coercive action against them.

The court after going through the arguments and affidavits held that: “The consumers or passengers are not before the Court complaining about lack of choice, deficient quality of drinking water or drinking water being provided at a price which is not affordable. In such circumstances at the instance of traders and licensees, we cannot take cognizance of the submissions canvassed before us.”