BOMBAY SHOE-SHINE WORKERS CO-OP. SOCIETY LTD.versusTHE GENERAL MANAGER, CENTRAL RAILWAY MUMBAI DIVISION AND 2 ORS.

                                                                                           J-WP-1643-2022.odt


                               rajshree


                                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                                    ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
                                                         WRIT PETITION NO.1643 OF 2022
                                          Bombay Shoe-Shine Workers Co-Op.      ..   Petitioners
                                          Society Ltd. through its Secretary,
                                          A registered Co-op. Society bearing
                                          its Registration No.BOM/PRD/IND/
                                          298 of 1975, Room No.40,
                                          Asha Nagar, Prabhat Colony,
                                          Santacruz (East), Mumbai-400 005.

                                                         Versus
                                          1 The General Manager, Central        ..   Respondents
                                          Railway Mumbai Division, Central
                                          Railway Headquarters, Chatrapati
                                          Shivaji Maharaj Terminal, Fort,
                                          Mumbai – 400 001.
                                          [email protected],
                                          [email protected]
                                          2 Senior Divisional Commercial
                                          Manager, Mumbai division (Central
                                          Railways), Catering Section, First
                                          Floor, PRS Building, Reservation
                                          Centre, CSMT, Mumbai-400 001.
                                          [email protected]
                                          3 Director TrafCc Commercial,
                                          Ministry of Railways (Railway
                                          Board), 239, Railway Bhavan,
                                          Raisina Road, New Delhi-110001.
                                          [email protected]


                                          Ms.Jane Cox a/w Mr.Vinayak Suthar i/b Mr.Ghanshyam
RAJSHREE Digitally
KISHOR
         RAJSHREE
                   signed by

         KISHOR MORE
                                          Thombare for the Petitioners.
                                          Mr.T.J. Pandian a/w Gautam Modanwal for the Respondents.
         Date: 2026.03.21
MORE     17:09:02 +0530




                                                                                                      1/29
                                                           J-WP-1643-2022.odt




                    CORAM : BHARATI DANGRE &
                            MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, JJ

                    DATE     :    18th MARCH 2026

JUDGMENT (PER BHARATI DANGRE, J) :

1      The Petitioner Bombay Shoe-Shine Workers Co-Op. Society
Ltd., a Society registered under Maharashtra Co-operative
Societies Act, 1960 as Producers’ Society and sub-categorized as
Industrial     Producers’     Society    as    per   Section     10(1)    the
Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules, 1961, engaged                       in
carrying out an activity of polishing shoes of passengers at
Earmarked Railway Stations, has approached this Court seeking
the following reliefs :-
    “a. That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to peruse Shoe Shine policy 2018
    framed by Respondent No. 2 dated 27.02.2018 and, after going into the
    legality thereof, by a Writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ,
    order or give direction, to quash and set aside the same.

    b. That this Hon'ble High court may be please by a Writ of mandamus
    or in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or order or
    direction, to direct the Respondent No.1 to reconsider the Shoe Shine
    Policy 2018 and make sure that the livelihood and job security of
    members of the Petitioner Society may be protected.

    c. That this Hon’ble High court may be please by a Writ of mandamus or
    in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or order or
    direction, to direct the Respondent No.1 to reconsider the Shoe Shine
    Policy 2018 and introduce provisions for the welfare of societies who
    have been engaged at their respective Earmarked Railway Stations for
    more than decade so that their licenses may be renewed from time to
    time.”


2      The    Petition     impleads    General    Manager      and    Senior
Divisional     Commercial        Manager,     Central   Railway,     Mumbai
division as Respondent Nos.1 and 2 alongwith the Director of


                                                                         2/29
                                                           J-WP-1643-2022.odt



TrafCc (Commercial) as Respondent No.3. Respondent No.1 is the
Railway Administration as per Section 2(32) of the Railways
Act, 1989      and is responsible for         framing policy guidelines,
whereas Respondent No.2 is responsible for inviting tenders for
Mumbai Region awarding work of shoe-shine under the Policy
formulated by Respondent No.1.
       On the Petition being Cled, on 02/03/2022, the Respondents
were permitted to Cle AfCdavit in Reply and though the tender
process initiated was sought to be stayed, the Division Bench by
making it clear that it is open for the Petitioner to participate in
the subject tender, refused to interdict the tender process, but
declared that any bids accepted in furtherance of the subject
tender, shall be subject to outcome of the Writ Petition.
       On 04/04/2022, it was noted that no response was received
to the OnLine tender published and a fresh tender in manual
form with documentation in Hindi was in the pipeline.


3      The Writ Petition was listed before this Court from time to
time when various orders were passed and on 22/02/2023 when
the counsel for Petitioner pressed for urgent ad-interim relief to
the effect that the Railways must be restrained from proceeding
with an open tender and must be directed to reconsider its ‘Shoe-
Shine License Policy’ (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Policy’), the
interim relief was declined by recording the reasoning to the
following effect :-
       “5. When Mr Singhvi invites attention to the decision of the
    Supreme Court in Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, South
    Central Railways and Ors v SCR Caterers, Dry Fruits, Fruit Juice Stalls
    Welfare Association & Anr, we believe he may be in signiCcant error.
    That was, clearly, a case of displacement of small units providing

                                                                       3/29
                                                               J-WP-1643-2022.odt



    catering services by large-enterprise caterers. That is not the case
    here. The Petition itself indicates to us quite the reverse. The Shoe-
    Shine Policy and the Shoe-Shine Tenders under that policy are not
    intended for corporates. In fact, there is no such thing. They are meant
    for societies of precisely persons such as the members of the Petitioner.
    The entire thrust of the Petition is that if the Petitioner is forced to bid
    its members will be deprived of a livelihood because they cannot bid
    competitively and the rates of the Shoe-Shine services are Cxed in any
    case by the Railways. The rates are Cxed for everybody, not just for the
    Petitioners. But what the Petitioners really object to is the participation
    of other associations and unions in the tendering process. This is clear
    inter alia from paragraph 19 of the Petition. There the Petitioners say
    that another union Cled a written complaint demanding the
    termination of the Petitioner’s contract of 2nd February 2020, because
    the Petitioner was deregistered by the Assistant Registrar of
    Cooperative Societies. We are not concerned with these questions of
    registration and orders of the Assistant Registrar. If the Petitioners
    take that up in a separate Writ Petition, we will address it. If the
    registration has been restored, then that is the end of that matter. The
    point is that there may be more than one association at these reserved
    Railway Stations. Their membership may be different. It is obviously
    necessary in the interests of transparency and fairness and providing a
    fair opportunity to all Shoe-Shine persons to allow them to participate.
    What the Petitioners are essentially saying is that since they have been
    providing these services for such a long time, the Shoe-Shine contract
    should be given to — and only to — them and to no one else. This is why,
    according to them there should be no process of bidding even amongst
    the Shoe-Shine persons. This is not a question of a union of Shoe-Shine
    workers or persons being displaced by a corporate or a corporatized
    entity. No such thing exists. The policy itself is directed at unions of
    Shoe-Shine persons and similar associations or societies. There is no
    insistence that the participant must be either only a society or an
    association or a union. It may be any form of collective of any Shoe-
    Shine persons.

    6. In this view of the matter, we do not see how it is possible to give Mr
    Singhvi’s clients the kind of relief that they want restricting the award
    of the Shoe-Shine contracts for any period of time only to the
    Petitioners. That would mean cutting out other existing associations
    and societies.”


4      The above order passed by the Court on 22/02/2023 was
subjected to an Appeal before the Supreme Court                          and on
13/03/2023 the following order was passed :-




                                                                            4/29
                                                             J-WP-1643-2022.odt



    “UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
                                    ORDER
    Having heard the learned senior counsel for the petitioner and having
    perused the material placed on record, we do not feel inclined to
    consider interference in the impugned order dated 22.02.2023, which
    is essentially an interim order, whereby the High Court has declined
    the prayer of interim relief sought for by the petitioner.

    However, taking note of the subject-matter of the pending litigation and
    the totality of circumstances, it does appear proper to observe that if
    the petitioner makes an appropriate request before the High Court for
    taking up the pending writ petition for consideration at an early date
    and in priority, such a request may be given due consideration.

    It goes without saying that the observations occurring in the order
    impugned are relevant only relief for the purpose of consideration of
    the prayer for interim relief as made by the petitioner and obviously,
    those observations shall not be decisive in the Cnal adjudication of the
    matter by the High Court.

    Subject to the observations foregoing, this petition stands dismissed.

    Pending applications also stand disposed of.”


5      Upon the pleading being completed, the Petition is taken up
for hearing and by consent of the respective counsel representing
the Parties, we deem it appropriate to issue ‘Rule’, which is made
returnable forthwith.
       We have heard the learned counsel Ms.Jane Cox for the
Petitioner and Mr.T.J. Pandian for the Respondents.
       With the able assistance of the respective counsel, we have
perused the Writ Petition alongwith its annexures and also the
AfCdavit in Reply Cled on behalf of the Respondents.
       The grievance of the Petitioner, revolve around ‘Shoe-Shine
Policy/Boot Polish Policy’ , which was formulated by the Ministry
of Railways (Railway Board) and what we have before us is the
Policy formulated in 1999, thereby revising the existing policy.
       The Shoe-Shine contract on stations framed in form of a

                                                                         5/29
                                                          J-WP-1643-2022.odt



Policy, was aimed in generating employment opportunities for
the persons belonging        to lowest strata of the Society and it
contemplated awarding of Shoe-Shine Licenses                   to the Co-
operative Societies of workers in the tanning industry or in the
manufacture of leather goods such as shoes. The strategy of the
said Policy was highlighted as below :-
  STRATEGY :
  “In order to generate employment opportunities for the persons
  belonging to lowest strata of the society, we may award Shoe-shine
  licenses to the cooperative societies of workers in the tanning industry
  or in the manufacture of leather goods such as shoes, etc. Out of these
  cooperatives, preference should be given to those which compose
  substantially or fully of members of scheduled castes and scheduled
  tribes.”


     As per the terms and conditions             stipulated therein, the
Contract was to be awarded for a period of 3 years and it was
permissible to be renewed after every 3 years subject to review
of performance and the Contract to the Society                  was to be
awarded between certain Cxed stations to be decided by the
Competent Authority.
     The relevant clauses imposed as terms and conditions were
speciCed thus :-
  “2.1      ………...

  2.2 The licenses for shoe polishing at stations are to be given to
  cooperatives of workers in the tanning industry or in the manufacture
  of leather goods such as shoes, etc and each contract should not cover
  more than one civil district as distinct from a Railway district.

  2.2 …………
  2.3 …………
  2.4 ………...

  2.5 A copy of the constitution of the society should be submitted by the
  society alongwith a list of their members within a week of acceptance of
  the contract prior to its execution. The constitution should clearly


                                                                      6/29
                                                         J-WP-1643-2022.odt



indicate that their members belong to SC & ST and weaker sections of
the society. In case of absence of such clause they should submit an
afCdavit for the same.

2.6 ………...
2.7 ………….

2.8 All Shoe shine boys should be medically examined by the railway
Doctor twice in a year and the certiCcate to that effect should be sent to
the ofCce for record.

2.9 ………….

2.10 The laminated identity card with photograph duly signed and
stamped will be issued to the shoe-shine boys by the society which all
the boys should put on their uniforms while they are on railway
premises. Cards should indicate their names and age. In case any boy is
found without the card, he will be treated as unauthorised vendor and
suitable action will be taken against the boys as well as the institution.

2.11 ………….

2.12 No shoe shine boy below 18 years of age should be engaged for this
purpose.

2.13 ………….

2.14 Railway reserves the right to change the terms and conditions.

2.15 The contract can be terminated by the railway administration at
any time time without assigning any reasons thereto.

2.16 The list of names of shoe-shine boys with their photographs will be
kept in the station records.

2.17 ………...

2.18 No subletting of shoe-shine licence is permitted either by society
or by shoe-shine boys.

2.19      ………….

2.20      …………..

2.21       Responsibility for observance of Minimum Wage Act should
lie with the cooperative to whom the contract is awarded for which a
periodical undertaking should be obtained from the society.”




                                                                      7/29
                                                            J-WP-1643-2022.odt



6      The said Policy was reviewed and on 23/11/2000 and the
strategy of the same was formulated by directing as below :-
    "In order to generate employment opportunities for the persons
    belonging to lowest strata of the society, we may award Shoe-shine
    licences to the registered cooperative society of workers in the tanning
    industry or in the manufacture of leather goods such as shoes, etc. The
    tanning industry also includes the registered cooperative society of
    shoe-shine workers. Out of these cooperatives, preference should be
    given to those which compose substantially or fully of members of such
    scheduled castes and scheduled tribes.”


       On 25/02/2002 , the Railway Board directed the registered
cooperative society to enroll only such persons as members who
are not member of any other registered cooperative society of
workers in the tanning industry or in the manufacture of leather
goods such as shoes, so as to avoid double membership.                    The
instructions from the Railway Board made it mandatory for the
Society to submit         a copy of the Constitution of the Society
alongwith the list of their members with their signatures and
photographs while applying for the Contract.


7      On 24/04/2015, the Board, after taking review of the
existing Policy decided to authorize Zonal Railways (General
Manager)       to frame their own policy guidelines for awarding of
Shoe-shine Contracts at Railway Stations and the directions
issued to the General Manager of all Zonal Railways were issued
in supersession of all earlier policy guidelines in that regard.


       This was followed by the formulation of Shoe-Shine Policy,
2018, by the Central Railway, Principal Chief Commercial
Manager’s OfCce, Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj Terminus, Mumbai


                                                                        8/29
                                                             J-WP-1643-2022.odt



and it is this policy which is the subject matter of challenge in the
present Writ Petition.


8      Described as Shoe-Shine Licence Policy , 2018, its preamble
highlighted the objective of the Policy, as generation of
employment opportunities to the weakest of weaker Society.
       Giving the preface as regards the Policy dated 23/03/1999
alongwith the corrigendum/amendments to the said Policy, it is
speciCed that the Railway Board on 24/04/2015 empowered the
Zonal Railway (GM) to frame policy guidelines for awarding of
shoe shine contracts at Railway Stations                     in their zonal
jurisdiction.    What is pertinent to note is Clause 1.3 and 1.4 of
the Policy, which recorded thus :-


    “1.3 Railway Board vide their letter 2006/TG-IV/8/21/WR dated
    22/05/2009 advised Zonal Railway's to progressively discourage the
    practice of shoe-shine. The services presently available were
    temporarily extended on same terms and conditions. In view of above,
    the policy proposed will be applicable to old locations, presently under
    temporary extension, on initiation of fresh tender to said locations. In
    this regard addition to new locations where no such service is available
    presently and also requirement of additional numbers of such facility, if
    any, at stations where already this provision is available will be done.

    1.4 The locations operated from years together and presently under
    temporary extension will be allowed to continue for a period of six
    months only to provide continuity of service during tender process on
    old terms and conditions and will cease on award of fresh license
    through open tender.”




       The Policy of 2018 covered manual operation of shining of
Shoes and necessary petty repairs to footwear items at stations
on demand from passenger and the facility was to be provided at


                                                                         9/29
                                                           J-WP-1643-2022.odt



A1, A, B and C category stations only, depending upon the need
and trafCc density at those stations.
     Clause 3.0 which actually provided for the terms of
Engagement of shoe-shine workers in the Policy reads thus :-


  “3.1 The shoe shine license shall be awarded to the registered societies
  of shoe shine boys only. Co-operative societies of workers in the tanning
  industry or in the manufacture of leather goods will not be eligible to
  participate in such contracts. (Commercial Circular No: 111 of 2006).
  3.2 Open Tenders on single packet will be invited from societies of shoe-
  shine workers for awarding of shoeshine contracts at stations. A copy
  of the constitution of the society should be submitted by the society
  along with a list of their members at the time of contract tendering.
  3.3 While awarding the contracts genuineness of the participating
  societies should be checked by the division in order to protect the
  interest of genuine co-operative societies.
  3.4 It is preferable that members of society desirous to be appointed as
  shoe shine worker at stations should fulCll the following criteria:-
  (a) Age Limit. Minimum age should be 18 years.
  (b) Medically Ct to perform duty as per Railway's policy prescribed.
  (c) Society should be able to produce a Police veriCcation certiCcate
  highlighting that person employed is free from criminal back ground.
  The same should not be more than 6 months old from the date of calling
  of tender applications.
  3.5 Responses received for the open tender will be screened by a
  committee as per new model SOP of October/2017 and amendment
  therean from time to time. Committee will evaluate and submit their
  recommendations to the accepting authority as per SOP.
  3.6 Since open tenders will be invited for the Crst time existing license
  fee may be kept as anticipated earning potential for the locations, if
  there is no change, in numbers of shoe-shine boys with approval of
  Associate Finance. For all Crst time open tendering, anticipated
  earning potential arrived should have approval/vetting of Associate
  Finance. If there is no response, to any locations in open tender further
  notiCcation on earlier approved anticipated earning (reserve price)
  may be initiated immediately without waiting for further Associate
  Finance vetting.”


     Clause 4 of the impugned Policy prescribe the conditions
related to license and Clause 4.1 provide that the Contract will
be for a period of 3 years subject to review of performance during
the currency of contract.

                                                                     10/29
                                                           J-WP-1643-2022.odt



      Staff employability was prescribed in clause 4.2 which
reads thus :-
  “4.2 Staff employability: A registered society shall enrol only such
  persons as members who are not a member of any other registered
  society of shoe shine workers. If it is found that double membership has
  been allowed by the society, the License of the society will be cancelled.
  No shoe shine boy below 18 years of age should be engaged for this
  purpose. Shoe shineP worker employable at station will continue as shoe
  shine person once appointed subject to fulClling necessary medical
  examination standards prescribed by Railway. The society will be
  permitted to give list of number of shoe-shine boys who will be utilised
  at the station to cover the requirements during working shifts and this
  will be approved by Railway administration. At any point of time, no
  excess shoe-shine persons will be utilised by licensee beyond the
  permitted numbers. Licensee/agency has the liberty to change/replace
  the shoe shine boys nominated for the station within the limit from the
  approved list. Any changes beyond this in shoe-shine boy's deployment
  at station will be with the proper prior approval of Railway
  administration. Any violation in this regard will be treated as breach of
  contract and action deemed Ct will be taken by Railway
  administration.”


      Clause 4.5 provided for medical examination of the Shoe-
shine persons by the Railway doctor once in a year subject to
payment of fees prescribed, wheres, Clause 4.6 set out the rate of
shoe-shine work as below :
      Plain Polish          :      Rs.10/-
      Cream Polish          :      Rs.15/-


      Clause 5 of the Policy was included as a provision for
‘License Fees’ which would be the offer given by the Society in
the open        tender notiCcation, with a stipulation of Society
depositing      requisite       license fee on quarterly basis with an
escalation of 0.6% per annum during the currency of the contract
in proportion to increase in rate of shoe policy.
      In addition to the aforesaid clauses, the Policy also


                                                                      11/29
                                                   J-WP-1643-2022.odt



comprised of a clause for security deposit, earnest money deposit
(EMD)      as well as forfeiture of EMD alongwiht     the punitive
clauses.
      Clause 12 of the Policy, permitted the Railways             to
terminate the Contract in case of continued non-compliance of
agreement/service conditions by the licensee or due to non
payment of license fee as per schedule after due notice.     It was
also made permissible for the licensee to seek termination of the
contract by giving a notice period of minimum three months.
      Clause 13.0 contemplated signing of an Agreement by the
licensee within 21 days of the allotment letter and clause 13.2
provide that the licensee shall indemnify the Railways for the
damages caused due to non-compliance of any statutory law, bye-
law or service conditions.


9     Pursuant to the said Policy being formulated the Mumbai
CST Division-Commercial/Central Railway issued a Tender Notice
No.BB-CO-SS-CLUSTER-A, stipulating      the   eligibility conditions
including the special technical/Cnancial criteria.         The bid
document published by Mumbai Division on               25/01/2022
provided the key information as it invited bids for ‘Provision of
Shoe Shine Contract at Railway Stations as per Cluster-A for a
period of 3 years at Mumbai Division under Single Packet
System’. Instructions were also issued to the bidders regarding
the downloading of tender forms and its submission.


10    The Tender Document (Shoe Shine Contract) prescribed
the following eligibility criteria :-

                                                             12/29
                                                           J-WP-1643-2022.odt



     1.1 Registered Cooperative Societies of shoe-shine workers only.
     1.2 The Societies having outstanding dues on the date of opening of
     Tender are not eligible to participate.
     1.3 The Society should not have been debarred/ blacklisted by any
     Railway Administration, Government of India or State Government or
     any Civic body on the date of opening of Tender.
     1.4 The Cooperative Societies of workers in the tanning industry or in
     the manufacture of leather goods will not be eligible.


        The selection process was stipulated thus :-
     “3. The Tender process shall be single packet system. Tenderer has to
     quote his price bid in appropriate column provided on IREPS Module on
     the E-Tender as a whole for the cluster (As per the tender notice) and
     the contract will be awarded to the Highest bidder for the cluster.”


        The documents to be submitted with the Tender included
the copy of the Constitution of the Society alongwith the list of
members at the time of Contract as well as the Adhaar card of the
shoe shine boys         to be engaged.       It was imperative       for the
tenderer to quote the price bid           in the prescribed format and
separate E-tender was to be submitted for each cluster and all
documents and EMD was to be furnished separately qua each
cluster.
        The Tender document was also accompanied with proforma
of the Master Agreement Governing Contract, to be signed on the
Contract being awarded to the successful bidder.


11      The Petitioner, claiming to be the only Cooperative Society
carrying out the activity of polishing shoes of passengers                    at
Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj Terminus, Masjid Bunder Railway
Station, Sandhurst Road Railway Station, prior to 1985 till the
current date raise a challenge to the new Policy as well as the
tender process initiated pursuant thereto.               According to the


                                                                      13/29
                                                   J-WP-1643-2022.odt



Petitioner-Society, it is continuously engaged in the activity of
shoe polishing of the passengers of Railways at earmarked
railway stations and out of its 35 members, 19 are employed at
CSMT, 6 at Masjid Bunder Railway Station and 5 at Sandhurst
Road Railway Station.
     It is the claim of the Petitioner that the Society is
continuously engaged in the work of shoe shine through its
workers and the livelihood of the members of the Petitioner-
Society is dependent upon this activity.
     The Petition is accompanied with true copy of the list of
working members of the Society at earmarked Railway Stations
and also also the photo identity cards issued to the members.


12   The claim of the Petitioner/Society is staked in the Petition
through appropriate pleadings and is urged before us by Ms. Jane
Cox, the learned counsel for the Petitioners, by submitting that,
the members of their society are from the lowest strata         and
substantially   from    scheduled   caste   and   scheduled    tribe
community and since the very Crst contract, it was the policy of
the Railway Administration to employ        the above mentioned
communities.    However,     from    time    to   time,   Railways
Administration amended its license policy in such a way that it
gradually watered down the very foundational welfare oriented
object of policy. Eventually, at present latest Shoe-Shine Policy
2018 has become a threat to livelihood and detrimental to the
right to life of the members of the Petitioner Society.       At the
moment, members of the Petitioner are accustomed to boot
polishing work because they are carrying out this activity for a

                                                              14/29
                                                     J-WP-1643-2022.odt



substantially longer period and it is not plausible on behalf of the
Railway Administration to make a way by introducing new policy
rendering members of the Petitioner Society jobless and deprive
them of their livelihood.


13    Ms. Cox urge that Respondent No.3, in consultation of the
Railway Board, changed its Shoe Shine Policy from time to time.
As per the Policy of 1999, dated 23/09/1999 registered society
was to become eligible for the Shoe Shine Contract, as per clause
1 and 2.5, it was mandatory that the substantial members of the
registered society shall be preferably from Scheduled Caste or
Scheduled Tribe or weaker section of the society. In absence of the
above-said clause, registered cooperative societies would not be
eligible for Shoe Shine Contract.    The Petitioner was complying
with alike clause since the very beginning and based on their
performance, service, and dedicated efforts they are as on today
continuously in service of passengers of the Earmarked Railway
Stations.
      That as per the Policy of 1999, Clause 2.21, Railway Board
had delegated to the Petitioner responsibility for observance
Minimum wage Act and same has been complied with by the
Petitioner Society till today.


14    The objection raised in the Petition is about the Shoe Shine
Policy, 2018 and it is the claim of the Petitioners that the Policy is
prejudicial to the welfare and livelihood of the members of the
Petitioner-Society, who have been rendering boot polish service
for more than 3 decades.         The Respondents are accused of

                                                               15/29
                                                  J-WP-1643-2022.odt



framing 2018 Policy without        adhering to the earlier policy
guidelines and in complete disregard to the object of framing of
Shoe Shine Policy .


15   According to the Petitioner/Society, subsequent to the
introduction of the said Policy in 2018, on receipt of the
representation from the Maharashtra Railway Boot Polish Union,
Respondent No.2 had decided to Roat tender in two stages, in Crst
stage tender to be invited for stations, where no Shoe-Shine boys
are engaged and second stage being to invite tenders at stations
where already shoe shine boys are employed. In compliance ,
Respondent No.2 invited open tender         for Railway Stations
designated cluster A and B which include the workplace of the
Petitioner-Society by its advertisement dated 25/01/2022, which
posed a threat to the livelihood of the members of the Petitioner-
Society. According to the Petitioner, Shoe Shine Policy was aimed
at generating employment      amongst the lowest strata of the
Society and it intended to promote societies administered by
members from Scheduled Caste and Schedule Tribe community
and weaker sections and it also ensured payment of minimum
wages to the Shoe Shine workers.
     In the Petition it is categorically averred that the
Maharashtra Railway Boot Polish Kamgar Sangh had sought
termination of the contract of Petitioner Society on the ground of
its de-registration by the Assistant Registrar of the Co-operative
Societies which order was passed without adhering to the
principles of natural justice and, therefore, the Petitioner
approached the City Civil Court, Mumbai       and by order dated

                                                            16/29
                                                 J-WP-1643-2022.odt



25/01/2022      passed in Notice of Motion No. 69/2022, the
Petitioner was protected as the Defendants/Railway            was
temporarily restrained from preventing the Plaintiff and and its
Shoe Shine Boys from conducting the business on CSMT, Masjid
Bunder and Sandhurst Road Railway Stations, till Cnal disposal
of the Suit or selection of fresh service provider for Shoe shine
contract by following due tendering process. It was also clariCed
that Defendants were not prevented from terminating the
services of the Plaintiff/Society in favour of the fresh service
provider   by following tender process, if the Plaintiff is not
selected in the process.
     It is the speciCc statement made before us that in the wake
of this order, the Petitioner is conducting its business at CSMT,
Masjid Bunder and Sandhurst Railway Stations.


16   On hearing Ms. Jane Cox, the learned counsel representing
the Petitioner, we Cnd that she is extremely critical about the
approach of the Respondents, as she would submit that the
earlier contract policy of 1999 contemplated preference to those
Cooperative Societies of workers    to compose substantially or
fully of members of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. Apart
from this, it is her speciCc contention that by virtue of clause
2.21, the responsibility of observance of Minimum Wage Act was
enforced on the cooperative society to whom the contract is
awarded, but both the aforesaid requirements are done away in
the 2018 Policy, as there is no preference given nor minimum
wages are ensured.



                                                           17/29
                                                  J-WP-1643-2022.odt



     Instead, according to Ms. Cox, under the new Policy, the
Shoe Shine License shall be awarded to the registered societies of
shoe shine boys and cooperative societies of workers in tanning
industry or in manufacture of leather goods are not eligible to
participate in such Contracts. She would submit that there is no
preference to the weaker section or the societies substantially
involving the members of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribes
and this has defeated the whole purpose of introducing the Policy.
     According to her,     the present Policy fail to take into
consideration the welfare of the members of the Petitioner who
are into the Boot Polish business since more than 3 decades and
it her speciCc contention that rendering services for a
considerable period of time, without any beneCt being given to
their experience, if Tenders are invited, with no provision for
preference to Society like that of Petitioner, the members of the
Petitioner Society would be loosing their source of livelihood as
for all these years they have only engaged themselves in the
activity of shoe polish and cannot adjust themselves in any other
avocation or trade.     She would   earnestly submit that       the
members of the Petitioner-Society do not have other means to
earn and they have to depend completely upon boot polish work
for their sustenance.
     She would also submit that some members of the Petitioner
Society are at advance age and depriving them of their source of
livelihood at this age would be detrimental to their interest and,
therefore, the Court must intervene and set aside the Policy of
2018 or direct Respondent No.1 to reconsider the said Policy by
ensuring that the livelihood and job security of the members of

                                                            18/29
                                                       J-WP-1643-2022.odt



the Petitioner Society is protected.
     She also insist on grant of prayer clause (c) of the Petition,
which seek a direction to Respondent No.1                to introduce
provisions for welfare of the Society, which has been engaged at
earmarked Railway Stations for more than a decade and their
license may be simply be renewed instead of their participation
in the tender process.


17   The reliefs sought in the Petition receive opposition from
the Railway and Mr. Pandian representing it, has placed reliance
upon the two AfCdavits, the Crst AfCdavit being Cled by T.
Sushma, Senior Divisional Commercial Manager of Central
Railway on 14/03/2022 and subsequent AfCdavit Cled by M. L.
Meena, Divisional Commercial Manager of Central Railway on
11/08/2022.
     According to Mr.Pandian, there is no arbitrariness in the
Policy and he would vehemently submit           that   the   impugned
policy introduces a transparent selection process of license by
public tender system and assertively he would submit that the
Petitioner cannot claim vested or indefeasible right to continue
with the Contract indeCnitely.
     According to Mr.Pandian, the license was granted to the
Petitioner Society around 1985 for a period of 3 years and it was
renewed upto 30.11.1988 and further in the year 1989. He would
submit that the Railway Board issued a Policy on 23/03/1999,
laying   down     the strategy of the          Railways to generate
employment opportunities         for persons     belonging to lowest
strata, which was    supplemented by a corrigendum issued on

                                                                 19/29
                                                 J-WP-1643-2022.odt



23/11/2000 which aimed at transparent selection process. He
would submit that in the circular issued on     25/02/2002, the
Railway Board accepted the process of inviting bids station wise
and in 2004 the circular of the Railway Board indicated inviting
bids for the purpose of ascertaining       license fee and this
suggestion was accepted by Ministry of Railway and necessary
instructions were issued.
       By relying upon the Circular, it is the contention of
Mr.Pandian that the instructions/guidelines contained therein go
to suggest that in the past Shoe Shine Contracts were to be
awarded by calling bids from the Society. He do not deny that
the Railway Board       in subsequent circular clearly expressed
that   the entire system and practice of    Shoe Shine shall be
progressively discouraged     and, therefore, in its Commercial
Circular No.25/2015, which was issued in supersession of the
earlier Policy, authorizing the Zonal Railways to formulate their
own policy guidelines for     awarding Shoe Shine Contracts at
Railway Stations.
       According to him, the operation of Shoe Shine activity of
the Petitioners     was continued purely on temporary basis and
Central Railway issued the detail policy guidelines in 2018, with
the aim and object of generating    employment opportunities to
persons belonging to weaker section and at the same time
achieving the object by transparent selection system among the
same class of people and, therefore, it is his emphasis that the
Policy aimed at transparent procedure to be adopted.
       It is his speciCc contention that Crst stage tenders were
Roated, where no Shoe Shine boys were deployed and            this

                                                           20/29
                                                              J-WP-1643-2022.odt



included Cluster – 1 Panvel, Cluster – II, Kalwa, Kopar, Diva and
Cluster – III, Ulhasnagar, Ambernath etc. and                 contracts were
awarded.        When the time came for tender at second stage, on
account of Covid 19 Pandemic, it could not be processed.
        It is the speciCc contention of Mr. Pandian that when the
tender is Roated, it is open for the Petitioner Society                          to
participate alongwith other cooperative societies involved shoe
shine activities, as there are many such cooperative societies
registered with the Registrar of Cooperative Societies, who had
made representations seeking              invitation of tenders enabling
them to participate.


18      Mr. Pandian would place reliance upon the speciCc stand
adopted in the Crst AfCdavit in Reply of the Railway wherein it is
stated thus :-
     “5. I say that, if the license of existing societies is kept renewed for
     years together, the other societies will never get any opportunity of
     their livelihood. Such renewal would be deprival of their right of equal
     opportunity. The Petitioners are also at liberty to participate in Tender
     process if they desire to continue by competing with others. Renewal of
     existing societies would lead to monopolies and may also lead to
     corrupt practices. Allotment of contracts through open tender system
     would be transparent than the renewal of existing society.

     6. I must also inform this Hon'ble Court that the subject tender which
     was invited through on-line mode on Indian Railway e-procurement
     System&opened on 02.03.2022, did not receive any response, for the
     reasons, on enquiry, revealed that the members of the Societies are not
     familiar with online system & also not much literate to understand the
     Tender Document published in English. Therefore, fresh Tender
     through manual mode with the Hindi Translation of the Tender
     Document is being published with the opening date of 06.04.2022.”

19      Responding to the query about further steps taken, it is the
contention of Mr.Pandian that the objective of the earlier Policy
as well as the present Policy, is to generate opportunities for

                                                                        21/29
                                                     J-WP-1643-2022.odt



persons    belonging to lower strata of the society,     though the
earlier policy contained a preference to be given to those, which
composed substantially or fully of members of Scheduled Caste or
Scheduled Tribes.
      However, he would submit that this was done away              by
Circular No.111 dated 22/12/2006 itself and the option of giving
preference to the Society of tanning industry                forming
substantially or fully of ST/ST members is not in existence in
2006.
      According to him,      the Petitioner Society was eligible to
participate in the selection     process under the Policy of 2018
which has provided that each society shall submit an AfCdavit
giving the composition of its members.          It is his speciCc
contention that the Shoe Shine contract can only be awarded to
those Societies whose members are from weakest of weaker
section of society, which may include         General as well as
Scheduled Caste or Schedule Tribe community.


20    In the background facts, we have noted the grievance of the
Petitioner, a Co-operative Society, which is engaged in the activity
of polishing of shoes of passengers        at earmarked railway
stations. It is also noted by us that they are indulged in the said
activity since 1985 and though the Policy of the Respondents was
revised from time to time but the tenders could not be Cnalized
and hence they continued to carry out the work of shoe polishing
and allied activities even till date.
      In the Scheme formulated by the Railway, a Policy existed in
1999, which was           strategically formulated      to generate

                                                               22/29
                                                              J-WP-1643-2022.odt



employment opportunities for the persons belonging to the lower
strata of society indicating that the Shoe-Shine licenses would be
awarded to the Co-operative Societies of workers in tanning
industry or those engaged in manufacturing of leather goods
such as shoes etc.
        The Policy contained a preference clause for those Societies
which composed of substantially or fully, the members of
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
        The aforesaid Policy, however, received amendment by a
corrigendum issued by the Railway Board on 23/11/2000, by
clarifying that the tanning industry               shall    also include the
registered Co-operative Society of Shoe-Shine workers.


21      On 22/12/2006 in regard to the Shoe-shine Contracts at
railway stations, a new circular was issued, revising the existing
policy by providing that the Shoe-shine licenses shall be issued
henceforth to the Societies of Shoe-shine boys only,                     to the
exclusion of          the workers in tanning industry or in the
manufacture of leather goods.
        At stations where Societies have been working for more
than 10 years, the Contract of the existing licensee was directed
to be      renewed subject to their satisfactory performance and
payment of license fee as may be Cxed. However, even this Policy
of 2006 contain a speciCc stipulation, which reads thus :

         “The Railway may, however, invite tenders from Society of Shoe-
     shine workers for Award of Shoe-shine Contracts at stations where
     no Society is engaged in boot-polish presently and if the bid accepted at
     stations where tenders have been invited is more than the reserved
     price, Cxed at stations where tender was not invited, the bid which has


                                                                        23/29
                                                           J-WP-1643-2022.odt



     been accepted will be applicable to the Societies working at stations,
     where tenders have not been invited and license fee shall be charged
     accordingly”.


22      Then came a strategic decision of the Railways somewhere
in 2009, when the Railway Board clariCed that it was of the view
that the entire system and practice of shoe-shine should be
progressively discouraged          though the      existing policy on the
subject was continued. This resulted in a strategic decision being
taken that the Zonal Railways (General Manager) shall frame
their own Policy for allowing Shoe-shine contracts               at railway
stations superseding all earlier policy guidelines.
        The impugned Policy of 2018 is, therefore, framed by
Central Railway, CST, Mumbai unlike the earlier Policies which
were framed by the Railway Board, Government of India,
Ministry of Railways.
        The Shoe-shine Policy of 2018, keeping in view the earlier
prevailing Policies         aimed at generation            of employment
opportunities to the weakest of weaker society, but it do not
contain any speciCc preference to the Societies comprising of
members of          Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, as was
provided in the earlier Policy. Now the new Policy contemplate
that Shoe-shine license shall be awarded                to the registered
societies of Shoe-shine boys and since the workers in tanning
industry or        engaged in manufacture of leather goods were
already excluded by the Circular of 2006, they stand excluded.
However, the Policy now involves open tender system from the
Societies of Shoe-Shine workers             with the speciCcation being
prescribed about age limit as well as medical Ctness and police


                                                                      24/29
                                                  J-WP-1643-2022.odt



veriCcation certiCcate so as to discourage entry of any person
with criminal background.
      Since the open tenders were invited for the Crst time, the
existing license fee was kept as estimated earning potential for
the locations, if there was no change in number of Shoe-shine
boys with the approval of associate Cnance. The contract to be
awarded, contemplate the period of 3 years subject to review of
performance during currency of Contract with speciCc clauses
being provided for staff employability and even the rate of Shoe-
shine work as well as license fees as speciCcally Cxed with also
stipulation of deposit of money by way of security deposits and
earnest money deposit .


23    In the   stand adopted by the Respondent/Railways, it is
informed that it is not only      the Petitioner/Society which is
comprised of Shoe-shine boys, but rather there are many such
Societies which are registered and they have repeatedly made
request to the Railways for having an open competition and we
Cnd   the Railways is justiCed in    inviting the tenders, as the
Petitioner Society cannot be the sole beneCciary of the Scheme.
The members of the Petitioner Society are engaged as Shoe-shine
workers for a considerable length of time and it is true that they
are not Ct for taking up any other avocation or occupation and
deCnitely those who intend to continue with the same, cannot be
deprived of their livelihood merely because the Contract would
be gained by any other Society.
      We, therefore, direct the Railways to give some weightage
to those Co-operative Societies of Shoe-shine     boys who have

                                                            25/29
                                                   J-WP-1643-2022.odt



experience of working in the past, but deCnitely that do not mean
that others/fresh bidders are never allowed to compete with the
Petitioner Society as it would amount to creation of a monopoly.
     We also do not Cnd merit in the contention of the Petitioner
Society of doing away with the preference in respect of co-
operative society, whose substantial or all members are scheduled
caste or scheduled tribe, as we Cnd that the bottom line of 2018
Policy is also to generate employment opportunity for the persons
belonging to lower strata of the society and that may include
members of scheduled caste and scheduled tribe, but not merely
on the basis of they belonging to a particular caste, but because
they are belonging to lower strata of society.


24   We Cnd that the Railways has adopted a mechanism of
tender process, which in our view shall ensure transparency in
the process and since we are informed that there are other Co-
operative Societies of Shoe-shine boys which are now registered,
every one will be entitled for participation in an open, fair and
documented process and each one of them will have their own
level playing Celd skill, and since ultimately the one who bids for
a larger amount of license fee shall be awarded the Contract for a
period of 3 years    which shall be subject to    further renewal
subject to its performance.
     The tender process which ensure transparency, openness
and fairness, also has the effect of curbing nepotism and
corruption and we welcome the step taken by the Railways for
adopting a more transparent procedure            for allotting the
Contract/ Shoe-shine license to the registered society of Shoe-

                                                             26/29
                                                   J-WP-1643-2022.odt



shine boys only. The adoption of open tender in single packet
inviting applications from the societies of shoe-shine workers for
awarding the shoe-shine contract at stations will afford equal
opportunity to all those who are similarly situated and the
participation of the Societies shall be tested which shall include
the   qualiCcation of its members, and their experience as the
tender process involve screening by a Committee which is
empowered to evaluate and submit its recommendation to the
accepting Authority as per the standard operating procedure.


25    Though Ms.Cox has vehemently asserted before us that the
Petitioners are likely to loose their jobs, as its members have
been engaged in the activity of shoe-shine for a considerable
length of time and it is quite possible that their livelihood depend
upon the same, but at the same time, we must also keep in mind
that it is not only they who are entitled to get the Contract as
there are other younger people who are eager to earn a livelihood
from the said avocation, as they may also belong to the weaker
strata of society and deCnitely in such a scenario there has to be
a competition, where opportunity is made available to each of the
participant and therefore we do not Cnd any Raw in the Policy
formulated   by Respondent No.1 on 27/02/2018 on both counts;
Crstly that there is no special preference given to a Society
comprising of largely or wholly members of scheduled caste or
scheduled tribe or that because the Petitioners are the members
of the Society and are are working for a considerable length of
time, and therefore no other entity/ individual is allowed to take
their job.

                                                             27/29
                                                  J-WP-1643-2022.odt



      On both counts since we do not Cnd any arbitrariness on
part of the Railway in shunting the claim of the Petitioners and
in fact it is quite possible that considering their experience, and
exposure to the trade, the Petitioner Society may emerge the
successful bidder to the exclusion of others, but according to us,
every such co-operative society of Shoe-shine boys, must get an
equal opportunity to compete with the Petitioners, as the
Petitioner cannot claim monopoly of the Petitioners to gain the
Contract at the stations, on which they are presently working.
      It is open for the Petitioner Society to participate in the
tender process and compete with others in the fray, though we
Cnd that considering their experience and performance in the
past, they may gain an edge over others and we direct the
Railways to consider the past experience of the Petitioner Society
for at least those stations on which they are already discharging
the shoe polishing contract.


26    We have also noted that the impugned Policy has done away
with the requirement of providing minimum wages to the
workers/employees engaged by the Contractor and we do not
approve of the same. We, therefore, direct Respondent Nos.1 and
2 to ensure that while Cxing the tender price or allotting the
contract, one of the condition subject to which the contract shall
be awarded shall be of payment of minimum wages as per the
applicable law to the members of the society. In fact, we also
direct Respondent No.2 to include this      as a condition in the
tender itself.



                                                            28/29
                                                         J-WP-1643-2022.odt



27    With the aforesaid observations, Cnding no merit and
substance in the contentions advanced, we dismiss the Petition,
but expect Respondent        Nos.1 and 2     to    keep in mind the
observations made by us as regards the Petitioner Society while it
consider its claim, if the Petitioner society decide to participate in
the tender process, but we make it clear that if the Petitioner
Society   fail   to   participate,   in   that    case     the   Railway
Administration is at liberty to proceed with the tender process,
in accordance with its Policy, formulated by the Central Railways
in form of ‘Shoe-Shine License Policy, 2018’. We also direct that
payment of minimum wages to the members of the Society
engaged by the Society towards accomplishment of the Contract
shall be ensured.




[MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J.]                   [BHARATI DANGRE, J.]




                                                                   29/29