RAMACHANDRAN, J. :--The Indian Railway Caterers" Association and one of its members, who is functioning as licensee of the Vegetarian Refreshment Stall, Trivandrum were the petitioners in O. P. No. 3107 of 2000, from which W. A. No. 3044 of 2001 arises. The writ petition was filed by them, challenging the proceedings and Circular of the Railway Board (Exts. P3 and P4), revising the rates and licence fee, brought into force from July, 1999. The Association alone is the appellant in the Writ Appeal. During the pendency of the Original Petition, the respondents had brought the attention of the Court to Commercial Circular No. 58/2000 dated 20-10-2000 incorporation the catering policy 2000, along with the counter-affidavit filed. It had not, however, been then subjected to challenge. After the disposal of the Original Petition on 12-7-2001, simultaneously while questioning the correctness of the judgment, the Caterers" Association and the Secretary in his individual name had filed O.P. No. 23352/2001 specifically subjecting to challenge the offending paragraphs of the above catering policy viz., Ext. P1. The learned Senior Counsel Sri M. K, Damodaran had addressed arguments in both the matters.

2. Writ Appeal No. 2913 of 2001 arise from O.P. No. 9037/2000, which again was an Original Petition filed by the second petitioner in O.P. No. 3107 of 2000 referred to earlier. He had not challenged any circulars or policies, but had complained about Exts. P1, P8, P10, P11 and P16 orders, compelling him to make remittances which became payable arising out of periodic revisions in the licence fee. A learned Judge had dismissed the petition. According to Mr. Ramakumar, counsel for the appellant, the learned Judge had overlooked relevant aspects while examining the contentions and maintained that in fact his client was entitled to a reimbursement, as payments had been made in excess of what was legally payable, both before the filing of the Original Petition and during the pendency of the proceedings. But it is seen that the said petitioner had not challenged the 2000 Catering Policy in the said petition.

3. We had also occasion to hear the submissions made by Sri S. M. Prem, counsel appearing on behalf of another licensee, Mammoo Haji, who is engaged in the business of catering through the non-vegetarian outlets at Palakkad and Shoranur Stations. Mr. Haji had originally filed O.P. No. 19263/99, and had challenged the orders, whereunder the licence fee was increased, complaining that it had been done with retrospective effect and, therefore, without authority of law. The Original Petition was amended from time to time, bringing forth additional documents, and he had incorporated prayers for setting aside such demands, pointing out that they are arbitrary. The challenge did not meet with success, and Writ Appeal No. 1229/2000 came to be filed in this context. The submissions were reagitated. Drawing sustenance from the contentions urged in O.P. No. 23352 of 2001, Mr. Haji, after commencement of the hearing of the batch cases also had filed O. P. No. 30979/2001, and the Standing Counsel for the Railways had taken notice thereof. In the above petition, the petitioner had challenged the validity of Circular No. 16 of the Railway Board dated 24-6-1999 (Ext. P8). The Circular No. 58/2000, incorporating the Catering Policy-2000 and an administrative order (Ext. P9) passed on 29-9-2001, concerning a domestic issue, also had been attacked, but the latter challenge has not been attempted to be substantiated to any extent.

4. We had also heard Sri S. V. S. Iyer, Senior Advocate appearing on instructions in three other Original Petitions, filed by Sri N. B. Krishna Kurup. Of them O.P. No. 21467 of 2000 had been filed as the licensee of Vegetarian Refreshment Room, Palakkad. For long, he was attending to the vegetarian catering at Calicut Railway Station as well. The writ petitions highlighting his grievances pertaining to the said business are O.P.