1. ' Abdul Rashid Butt petitioner was granted vending licence for ice and aerated water temporarily on ad hoc basis on 1-4-1990 and the same has been issued on 3-4-1991 till further order.
2. Subsequently through a general decision taken by the General Manager/Commercial Manager Pakistan Railways he was allowed to work till further advice. Through this 'writ petition he challenged the order dated 14-9-1991 whereby his licence was cancelled by the competent authority.
3. ' It is argued by the learned counsel that the petitioner's contract/licence has been cancelled in an arbitrary manner without providing him any opportunity of hearing. As argued in the connected writ petitions, he has also thrown challenge to the order dated 16-9-1991 of the Pakistan Railways, whereby a decision has been taken to remove the congestion on the. Railway platforms and to cancel all those vending contracts effective from November 1988 onward, period of which has already expired. Argument has been advanced that the decision dated 16-9-1991 has been taken under political dictates as a policy decision and the date of November, 1988 has been fixed arbitrarily which action being discriminatory is violative of Article 25 of the Constitution.
4. ' Learned counsel for the respondents/Railways has challenged the very maintainability of this writ petition as according to him, being contractual liability it cannot be enforced by invoking Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan. Reliance is placed upon Chandpur Mills Limited v. District Magistrate (PLD 1958 SC (Pak.) 267), Muhammad Hasham v. Zulfiqar Ali Khan (PLD 1963 Lah 418) and Millat Tractors v. Government of Pakistan (PLD 1992 Lah, 68). Exception has also been taken to the maintainability of the petition on the ground that it has been invoked without resorting to the arbitration clause mentioned in the agreement. Learned counsel further states that it is an admitted position and is not denied by the petitioner that the contract/licence is no more operative as the period mentioned therein has already expired, as such, the writ petition has become infructuous. Even general period of extension granted till further order through decision dated 7th of February, 1991 of the General Manager/Commercial Manager of Railways is no more in the field. Therefore, there is no legal character or status of the petitioner to continue his ice and cold drinks stall at the place. He has also pointed out that the licence/contract was granted to the petitioner without calling for any application in clear violation of the policy in vogue which factum is reflected/evident from the petitioner's application. He has stated that through order dated 16-9- 1991 impugned in this petition, a decision was taken in order to remove congestion on the Railway platforms to cancel all those vending contracts effective from November, 1988 owned, period of which had already expired. He pointed out that the temporary vending licences were issued much more than the sanctioned strength without taking into consideration the availability of the space which factum has created congestion causing great inconvenience to the general public. This decision according to the learned counsel for the respondents was taken to streamline the working of the vending licences so as to provide better facility to the general public. He has also in this regard relied upon the observation made by Wafaqi Mohtasib wherein it was observed that "the station platform is badly crowded with vending stalls. The station looks more like a Bazar and the obstructions are causing serious inconvenience to passengers. Actually it could prove even dangerous at times." A new policy in February, 1991 according to him, has been made applicable and according to the same contracts of vending and catering in future would be granted by calling applications through Press.
5. I have considered the contentions and have also gone through the comments submitted by the respondents. It is an admitted fact/position that the licence was granted to the petitioner without calling for applications for the same. It was issued simply for a specific period purely on temporary/ad hoc basis. The period mentioned therein has already expired. The Railway administration appears to be not under any obligation to extend the same when it was made clear to the petitioner at the time of its grant that the same was only for a temporary period. None of the petitioner's vested rights has been violated. It has been held in the case of MA. Naseer reported in PLD 1965 SC 83 that it is a revocable contract and can be terminated at the will of the grantor.
6. However, in the case in hand the period of grant has already expired and the petitioner has got no vested right to claim its continuance/renewal. The argument that the Minister for Railways was solely competent to grant licence has no force on the face of it. The Minister for Railways had issued Directive No, 2 on 30-4-1989 wherein it was stated that the vending contracts would be awarded on the basis of publicity in the Press so as to be given on competitive basis. The other argument of the learned counsel that Article 25 of the Constitution has been violated is without any force. It has been stated by the learned counsel appearing for the Railways that all the temporary licences/contracts whose period have already expired, have been cancelled. Therefore, in the circumstances of the case it cannot be said that the petitioner has been meted out a discriminatory treatment. The fact remains that the petitioner has got no right, whatsoever to continue after the expiry of his period when the initial grant was purely on temporary basis. In this view of the matter, there is no need to dilate upon the other point's aruged by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.
7. ' Before parting with this judgment I must observe that the Chief Commercial and Terminal Manager Mr. Iqbal Samad Khan, has given an undertaking through his affidavit to the effect that in case decision is taken to regnant the vending/aerated water licences, the petitioner would be dealt with on preferential basis provided he fulfils the requisite qualifications as laid down by the competent authority. This being the situation, I am sure that in future the respondents would give due regard to the aforesaid undertaking in case of grant of aerated water licences. Consequently, the writ petition having no force is dismissed in limine.