BOMBAY SHOE-SHINE WORKERS CO-OP. SOCIETY LTD. v. THE GENERAL MANAGER, CENTRAL RAILWAY MUMBAI DIVISION AND 2 ORS.
Validation of Open Tender System in Railway Shoe-Shine Contracts; Rejection of Monopoly Claims by Existing Licensees and Mandatory Inclusion of Minimum Wage Protections.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2026:BHC-OS:6893-DB
Decision Date: 18-03-2026
List of Laws
Constitution of India, Article 226; The Railways Act, 1989; Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960; Minimum Wages Act, 1948; Administrative Law - Policy Challenge and Transparency in Tendering
- Facts: The Petitioner, Bombay Shoe-Shine Workers Co-Op. Society Ltd., is a registered cooperative society whose members belong to the lowest strata of society, specifically from Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe communities. The society had been providing shoe-polishing services at earmarked railway stations since 1985 under various license policies of the Railway Administration. In 2018, the Central Railway introduced the "Shoe-Shine License Policy 2018", which moved away from the earlier practice of preferential renewals and direct allotments. Instead, it introduced an open tender system inviting bids from all registered shoe-shine societies. The Petitioner challenged this policy, arguing that it threatened the livelihood of its members, many of whom were elderly and had no other means of sustenance, and that the policy failed to provide the traditional preference for SC/ST-heavy societies.
- Procedural Posture: The Petitioner approached the Bombay High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Mandamus to quash the 2018 Policy and direct the Railways to reconsider it. An earlier interim relief was declined by the High Court and subsequently dismissed by the Supreme Court, which allowed the matter to be heard on priority for final adjudication.
- Issue: Whether the Shoe-Shine License Policy 2018 is arbitrary or illegal for replacing a preferential renewal system with an open tender process, and whether the Petitioner has a vested right to continue the contract indefinitely without competition?
- Holding: No, the policy is neither arbitrary nor illegal. The Petitioner has no vested right to an indefinite monopoly. However, the Court directed the Railways to consider the past experience of existing societies and ensured the mandatory inclusion of minimum wage provisions.
- Reasoning: The Court reasoned that an open tender process ensures transparency, openness, and fairness, which are essential to curb nepotism and corruption in public allotments. It held that the Petitioner cannot claim a monopoly or a perpetual right to a contract, as other societies representing the "weakest of the weaker sections" also deserve equal opportunity. The Court found that the 2018 Policy still targets the lower strata of society and does not invite corporate entities, thus maintaining its welfare objective. To balance the equities, the Court directed the Railways to give weightage to the Petitioner's long-standing experience during the bidding process and strictly mandated that "minimum wages" must be a condition of the contract to protect the workers' right to a dignified livelihood.
🔒 For Members Only