K.S. Rathore, J.-These are 19 similar writ petitions involving similar questions of law. At the request of the respective parties the aforesaid writ petitions are being decided by this common order. Facts of the case of Nihchal Dass & Company & Ors. vs. Union of India & Anr., S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2465/2004, are taken as leading case.

.2. The petitioners are all carrying the business of Catering at various Stations on the Jaipur Division of North Western Railway. They are providing catering service to travelling passengers. Earlier also the respondents increased license fees and, therefore, the Federation of Railway Porters, Vendors and Bearers filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4123/1991, which was decided on 112.1992. The operative portion of the order is reproduced as under:-

.“This writ petition is, therefore, allowed and it is directed that the respondents would charge the license fee from the members of the petitioner federation on the basis of increase by 25% to 50% in the existing license fee in terms of the decision, which was taken in the meeting of the Chief Commercial Superintendent and Member Traffic of the Railway Board in the month of September, 1986, in terms of which the instructions contained in the Circular Annexures-2 and 3 dated 2nd January, 1987 and 5th January, 1987 were issued and, any notice of demand or circular which may have been issued by the railway authorities in contravention of the aforesaid two circulars shall not be acted upon and given effect to against the members of the petitioner federation as such demand had already been stayed by this Court on 24th July, 1991.”

3. Earlier the license fees, which was charged from the petitioners was at the fixed rate and at some point of time it was charged on the percentage of sale turn over bearing 3 to 4%. That system was given go bye and fixed license fee was levied.

.4. The controversy arose when the respondents have issued a new Catering Policy, 2000. The learned Counsel for the petitioners referred Para 15.4 of new Policy, which deals with the license fee and the same is reproduced as under:-

.“15.4 License Fee.-License fee will be 12% (or any other percentage commission on sales notified from time to time) of estimated annual sales turn over for both general and reserved categories. In the case of static units, there will be no separate charges towards rent for building/land, vendors fee and conservancy charges, etc. except electricity and water charges based on actual consumption.”

5. As per Clause 15.4 of the new Policy of 2000 of license fees is charged on the basis of annual sales turn over and same is challenged by the petitioners in the aforesaid writ petitions on several counts.

6. To challenge the policy of 2000 regarding charging license fee on the basis of annual sales turn over on the ground that it is not a fee, it is a tax as they are charging the fee on the basis of turn over. In support of his submissions Mr. Bapna referred Entry 54 List II of VII Schedule and by referring the Entry 54 List II he submits that it is only the State Legislature, which is competent to levy the sales tax and not the Union of India and, therefore, the levy of license fee, which is in pith and substance sales tax is beyond the competence of Union of India and as such Para 15.4 of the Catering Policy, 2000 is illegal beyond the legislature competence.

7. Mr. Bapna further submits that the respondents are only providing permission to carry on the Catering activity on the platform on the terms and conditions enumerated in the contract agreement. The fee, which has been charged on the basis of turn over is not a fee but a sales tax. Merely a nomenclature of fee does not give the right to the respondents to levy sales tax, which is beyond the competence of Union of India as per Entry 54 List II.

8. This policy is also challenged on the ground that the respondents are not allowing the petitioners to charge the rate of their like and the petitioner