Bombay High Court: In a writ petition challenging the Shoe-Shine Licence Policy, 2018 (2018 Policy) formulated by the Central Railways for being arbitrary and violative of the right to livelihood of the persons engaged in the activity of shoe polishing, the principal issue was whether the introduction of an open tender process under the 2018 Policy and doing away with the caste-based preference and minimum wages violated the object of welfare and employment generation for persons belonging to the weaker strata of society. The Division Bench of Bharati Dangre* and Manjusha Deshpande, JJ., dismissed the writ petition, upholding the validity of Central Railway’s 2018 Policy. The Court found no arbitrariness in the impugned policy and directed that no monopoly can be created in tenders for shoe-shine services and that mandatory payment of minimum wages to the workers must be ensured.
Background
The petitioner is a registered cooperative society engaged in polishing shoes of railway passengers at earmarked railway stations since around 1985. It was contended that under “Shoe-Shine Policy/Boot Polish Policy” of 1999, shoe-shine licences were intended to be awarded to cooperative societies of workers in the tanning industry or in the manufacture of leather goods, belonging to the lowest strata of society, with preference given to societies substantially or entirely composed of members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
On 24 April 2015, the Railway Board authorised the Zonal Railways to frame their own policy guidelines and the Central Railway formulated the 2018 Policy, which governed the manual operation of shoe-shining services and necessary minor repairs to footwear at railway stations. It did not provide any express preference to societies comprising members of the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes, nor did it contain an express provision mandating payment of minimum wages. It further stipulated that shoe-shine licences were to be awarded exclusively to registered societies of shoe-shine workers, and that cooperative societies engaged in the tanning industry or in the manufacture of leather goods were not eligible to participate. In pursuance of the 2018 Policy, tenders were issued for the award of shoe-shine contracts for a period of three years.
The petitioner challenged both the validity of the 2018 Policy and the ensuing tender process, claiming that it was the only cooperative society engaged in providing shoe-polishing services to passengers at Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj Terminus. It was submitted that the livelihood of its members, who belonged to the lowest strata of the society, was entirely dependent on this activity. It was contended that since the award of the very first contract, it was the policy to employ members of the aforesaid communities, however, subsequent amendments had gradually watered down the policy’s foundational welfare-oriented objectives. The members were accustomed to shoe-polishing work, and it was asserted that the Railway Administration could not render them jobless or deprive them of their livelihood. It was further stated that, in compliance with the Policy of 1999, the petitioner had even complied with the obligation of paying minimum wages to its members.
On the other hand, the respondents opposed the petition contending that the 2018 Policy introduced a transparent mechanism for grant of licences through a public tender system, and that the petitioners did not possess any vested right to indefinite renewal of their licences. It was argued that the petitioners were permitted to continue the shoe-shine activity purely on a temporary basis, and they were at liberty to participate in the tender process along with other cooperative societies. It was submitted that the shoe-shine contracts could be awarded only to those cooperative societies whose members belonged to the weakest sections of society, which could include persons from the General category as well as the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe communities.
Analysis and Decision
The Court opined that the 2018 Policy was aimed at generation of employment opportunities to the weakest of weaker society, without any preference to the societies comprising of members of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. The 2018 Policy involved open tender system from the societies of shoe-shine workers with the specification being prescribed about age limit as well as medical fitness and police verification certificate to discourage entry of any person with criminal background.
The Court noted that, as open tenders were being invited for the first time, the existing licence fee was fixed based on the estimated earning potential of the respective locations and the contract to be awarded also prescribed the rates for shoe-shine work. Further, provisions were made for the deposit of amounts towards security deposit and earnest money. The Court observed that it was not only the petitioner but many other such societies making repeated requests to the Railways for having an open competition and the Railways was justified in inviting the tenders, as the petitioner could not be the sole beneficiary of the scheme.
The Court observed that the members of the petitioner Society, having been engaged as shoe-shine workers for a considerable time, were not fit to take up any other avocation or occupation and could not be deprived of their right to livelihood merely because the contract might be awarded to another society. Accordingly, the Court directed the Railways to give some weightage to cooperative societies of shoe-shine boys with prior experience. However, it was clarified that it did not imply that fresh bidders were never to be allowed to compete with the petitioner, as it would amount to creation of a monopoly.
The Court rejected the petitioner’s contention regarding the preference accorded to cooperative societies comprising substantially or entirely of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe members, observing that the bottom line of the 2018 Policy was to generate employment opportunities for persons belonging to the lower strata of society, which might include members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, not merely on the basis of their caste, but because they belonged to lower strata of society.
The Court noted that the Railways had adopted a mechanism of tender process which was open, fair, transparent and documented with everyone having their own level playing field skill, and the one bidding for a larger amount of licence fee would be awarded the contract for a period of 3 years, the renewal being subject to its performance. The Court opined that such a process had the effect of curbing nepotism and corruption. The adoption of open tender in single packet inviting applications from the societies of shoe-shine workers afforded equal opportunity to all those who were similarly situated and the participation of the societies was tested on the qualification of its members and their experience, as the tender process involved screening by a Committee which was empowered to evaluate and submit its recommendation to the accepting authority.
The Court opined that the petitioners alone were not entitled to the contract, as there were several younger people eager to earn their livelihood from the said avocation. Such individuals might also belong to the weaker strata of society and therefore, a competition was necessary to ensure that equal opportunity was made available to all the participants. The Court observed that there was no arbitrariness on part of the Railways in shunting the petitioner’s claim and they might even emerge as the successful bidder to the exclusion of others considering their experience and exposure to the trade. However, the Court also emphasised that every such cooperative society must get an equal opportunity to compete with the petitioner as it cannot claim monopoly to gain the contract at the stations on which it was presently working.
The Court noted that the 2018 Policy had done away with the requirement of providing minimum wages to the workers engaged by the contractor and directed Respondents 1 and 2 to ensure that while fixing the tender price or allotting the contract, one of the condition subject to which the contract would be awarded must be the payment of minimum wages as per the applicable law to the members of the society, and further directed Respondent 2 to include it as a condition in the tender itself.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the petition finding no merit in it and clarified that if the petitioners failed to participate in the tender process, the Railway Administration would be at liberty to proceed with the tender process in accordance with the 2018 Policy.
[Bombay Shoe-Shine Workers Co-Op. Society Ltd. v. Railways, Writ Petition No.1643 of 2022, decided on 18-3-2026]
*Judgment authored by: Justice Bharati Dangre
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Jane Cox a/w Vinayak Suthar i/b Ghanshyam Thombare.
For the Respondents: T.J. Pandian a/w Gautam Modanwal.
