JUDGMENT B. N. Sapru, J. - This writ petition and the connected writ petitions have been filed by the owners of the Cold Storages in the State of Uttar Pradesh challenging the validity of the U.P. Government Notification No. 3006/XII-4-501-1985 dated May 26, 1986, issued by the State Government in exercise of its powers under section 29 of the U.P. Regulation of Cold Storages Act, 1976 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act') fixing the maximum hiring charges which a licensee may charge for storing potatoes in the Cold Storages at Rs. 19-00 per quintal for the period from 15-2-1986 to 30-11-1986. 2. By the time this petition is being decided, the period mentioned in the Notification is over. 3. The validity of section 29 of the Act under which the maximum charges have been fixed, has not been in question in this writ petition. However, the fixation of maximum charge is challenged on the ground that it is arbitrary and unreasonable and, if it is allowed to be enforced, the Cold Storages' owners will suffer such loss as will drive them out of the business. 4. The Act was published in the U.P. Gazette Extraordinary dated April 19, 1976. Before the Act came into force, the Bill had been sent to the President, as required by Art. 304(b) of the Constitution, because the Act was likely to impose restrictions on the freedom of trade, commerce and intercourse within the State and was required in the public interest. It received his sanction on 16-4-1976. The Statement of Objects and Reasons to the Act reads as follows : "In Uttar Pradesh there has been a marked development in the cold storage industry during the last decade and a large number of cold storages have been set up in the private sector, particularly in and around the potato growing areas. To ensure efficient maintenance of cold storages and to remove the hardship to agricultural produces proper control and regulation of the cold storage business was considered necessary in the public interest." 5. The Act provides for the licensing of all Cold Storages. It further provides, in section 29, that the Government shall, from time to time, fix the maximum charges which a licensee may charge for. The Act provides for the licensing of all Cold Storages. It further provides, in section 29, that the Government shall, from time to time, fix the maximum charges which a licensee may charge for. storing agricultural produce in a cold storage or for any other services rendered in connection therewith and different charges may be fixed for different areas in Uttar Pradesh. Thereafter section 30 of the Act provides that the maximum charges fixed under section 29 have to be notified in the official Gazette. 6. Section 3 of the Act provides for the constitution of an Advisory board. This board is constituted by the State Government and its all the members are officers of the Government. The constitution of the Board is as under : "(a) The Agricultural Production Com- missioner, U.P., who shall be the Chairman of the Board; (b) A representative of Agricultural Marke- ting Officer of the Government; (c) Director of Industries, U.P.; (d) The Registrar, Co-operative Societies, U. P., (e) The Director of Mandis, U.P. Lucknow; and (f) The Director of Horticulture and Fruit Utilisation, U.P. who will also act as the Secretary. 7. Section 4 of the Act provides for the duties of the Advisory Board which, inter alia, includes advising the Government in the matter of fixation, from time to time, maximum charges for storing agricultural produces in the Cold Storages. Section 31 of the Act provides that where a Board has been constituted under section 3, the State Government shall consider its report before fixing the charges referred to in section 29 of the Act. 8. It is the Advisory Board which had recommended that the maximum hiring charges should be fixed at Rs. 24-00 per quintal for the year 1985-86; whereas the Government has fixed the maximum hiring charges at Rs. 19-00 per quintal for the year 1985-86. In the previous two years also, the maximum hiring charges had been fixed at Rs. 19-00 per quintal. 9. After the Advisory Board had submitted its report, but before the Government fixed the hiring charges on 26- 5-1986, the U.P. State Electricity Board had on 1-2-1986 enhanced the charges for the electricity which is required for the operation of the Cold Storages. The hike, according to the petitioners, resulted in increase in the costs of running of the Cold Storages by Rs. 4-80 per quintal. 10. The hike, according to the petitioners, resulted in increase in the costs of running of the Cold Storages by Rs. 4-80 per quintal. 10. The petitioners aver that there were frequent power-cuts and in order to maintain a low temperature they have to generate their own electricity which adds to the costs as fuel prices have increased. 11. The petitioners further aver that the minimum wages had also been increased over the period by the Notification dated 11-11- 1985. According to the petitioners, the additional burden on the cold storages as a result of the enhancement of the minimum wages works up to Rs. 6-40 per quintal. This additional burden has not been taken into account as is evidenced by the fact that though the additional burden was imposed in November, 1985, and the State Government fixed the maximum hiring charges in May, 1986, it maintained the maximum hiring charges at Rs. 19/- per quintal, as has been done in the previous year. 12. A further circumstance on the basis of which the petitioners contend that the maximum hiring charges fixed by the State Government is arbitrary and will cause heavy loss to them, is evidenced by the fact that the Cold Storages which have been financed by the World Bank Loan, has, by section 44-A of the At, which had been added to the Act by the U.P. Regulation of Cold Storages (Amendment) Act, 1983, been exempted from the provisions of section 29 of the Act and as such they can charge more than the maximum hiring charges. The Statement of Objects and Reasons attached to the Bill reads as below : "Section 29 of the Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Cold Storages Act, 1976 provides for fixing of maximum charges by the State Government for storing agricultural produce in cold storages or for any other service rendered in this connection. In accordance with section 26 of the said Act, the licensee of a cold storage cannot charge any amount over and above the charges fixed by the State Government. Under the World Bank Project and in collaboration with the National Co-operative Development Corporation, 69 cold storages are to be constructed in the State. The World Bank Mission is of the view that the present rental ceiling in respect of the cold storages is inadequate and it does not ensure profitable business. Under the World Bank Project and in collaboration with the National Co-operative Development Corporation, 69 cold storages are to be constructed in the State. The World Bank Mission is of the view that the present rental ceiling in respect of the cold storages is inadequate and it does not ensure profitable business. It was, therefore, considered proper to provide for exemption of such cold storages from rental ceiling as may be considered necessary in public interest." 13. This shows that at least in 1983 the World Bank thought that the hiring charges fixed by the State Government were inadequate and did not ensure profitable business. Thus, a large number of Cold Storages are exempt from the provisions of section 29 of the Act. 14. It has been argued that the operational costs of all the Cold Storages are more or less the same. Of course, there are some differences because of different machines used and this also shows that the maximum hiring charges fixed by the State Government are inadequate. 15. It has come in the evidence that such Cold Storages which have received World Bank assistance are charging anything between Rs. 27-00 to Rs. 35-00 per quintal. 16. A Commission known as 'Bhanwar Singh Commission' had been appointed to study the working of the Cold Storages in Uttar Pradesh. It submitted a report to the Government. This report prepared by the Centre for Social and Technological change, Bombay, examined the techno-economic aspect of potato production and storage in Uttar Pradesh. It calculated the Break-even Rental Charges at Rs. 38-26 per quintal for the smaller units in Co-operative Sector and Rs. 37-95 per quintal for the larger units in the Co-operative Sector and at Rs. 41.04 per quintal for Smaller Units and Rs. 40-92 per quintal for the larger units in private sector. It went on to observe "It is clear from Table 7.16 that break- even rental charges are almost twice the prevailing rental charges per quintal (@ Rs. 19 per quintal). If one assumes a lower capacity utilisation which could be the case in scarcity years, the break-even rental charges would turn out to be even higher, so also would be the case if the interest charges are higher than what has been stipulated here. 19 per quintal). If one assumes a lower capacity utilisation which could be the case in scarcity years, the break-even rental charges would turn out to be even higher, so also would be the case if the interest charges are higher than what has been stipulated here. Further, with 40 per cent subsidy (in the form of contribution towards the cost of investment) in the case of the co-operative sector, break- even rental charges work out to be quite. close to that in the private sector. If the element of subsidy is taken out, the break-even point would jump even further." 17. The Report went on to add- "Considering that the net income benefit to the farmers at current rentals is of the order of Rs. 44-75 per quintal, there is undoubtedly scope for raising the rentals. The net income benefit to the small farmers works out to be the lowest, i.e. Rs. 31-53 per quintal. If we assume that at least one fourth of this benefit can be claimed by way of increased rentals, the per quintal rentals would work out to be Rs. 26-9 (the current rental charge of Rs. 19 + Rs. 7.9 which is one fourth of the net income gain in the lowest category). In addition to this, efforts need to be made to reduce the operational and maintenance costs. Subsidy at the rate of at least about 50 per cent of the electricity charges may be of great help in reducing the annual operational and maintenance costs and to ward off any adverse effect on the cold storage industry in the wake of the latest hike in electricity tariff and minimum wage rates. Between the private and co-operative sector, the latter needs a greater element of subsidy." 18. This Report appears to have been accepted, as is evident from Letter No. 7845 Bh.Oo./18-11-1167 Bha/85 dated 3- 9-1986 addressed by the Joint Secretary to the U.P. Government to the General Manager of the U.P. Co-operative Federation, Lucknow, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure 2 to the III supplementary affidavit, in Writ Petition No. 8156 of 1986. 19. In an application for modification of the stay order in one of the writ petitions, a letter No. C-20/VI-4/Rate/Cold Storage dated 25-8-1986 of the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies, U.P., Lucknow, to various co-operative bodies dealing in Cold Storages has been filed. 19. In an application for modification of the stay order in one of the writ petitions, a letter No. C-20/VI-4/Rate/Cold Storage dated 25-8-1986 of the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies, U.P., Lucknow, to various co-operative bodies dealing in Cold Storages has been filed. It has been mentioned in the letter that the High Court has granted a stay order under which the Cold storages have been permitted to charge Rs. 8-00 more than the maximum hiring charges fixed and the money was directed to be kept in a suspense account. It further went on to add that the Cold Storages financed by the World Bank should charge between Rs. 27-00 and Rs. 35-00 per quintal, as was appropriate. The letter threatens that the Secretary/Administrator of the Co-operative Cold Storages who charges less than the rate prescribed by the letter, would be responsible for any loss and their services can be terminated. 20. It is settled law that the fair charges would include the costs of production and a reasonable margin of profit (See AIR 1974 SC 366 , Shree Meenakshi Mills v. Union of India) and the reasonable charges should be fair not only to the consumer but to producer also. The fair charges should be such as would give incentive to producers and it should be such that the producer should not be driven out of business. 21. It is submitted that when the fixation of the maximum hiring charges has been challenged on the ground of arbitrariness, the burden was on the State to show that the charges were reasonable. The record of the Government shows that they did not accept the report of the Advisory Board in the interest of the Potato growers. This was a legitimate interest to protect but the interest of the industry had also to be protected. The evidence on record indicates that the maximum hiring charges fixed were too low and many relevant factors appear to have been ignored. 22. The argument of the learned Advocate-General that because of the depreciation, the petitioners got under the Income-tax Act, the capital cost of the petitioners was low and. therefore, the order of the State Government was justified. This argument cannot be accepted for the simple reason that the depreciation is a factor of costs to cover depreciation in machinery, plant, building etc. therefore, the order of the State Government was justified. This argument cannot be accepted for the simple reason that the depreciation is a factor of costs to cover depreciation in machinery, plant, building etc. to provide against obsoleteness of the machinery and to enable the repairs to be carried out or replacement in course of time. 23. The learned Advocate General, in his arguments, has contended that this Court cannot and should not interfere under Art. 226 of the Constitution with the maximum hiring charges prescribed by the State Government. The first submission, he makes, is that, in their applications for renewal of the licenses, none of the Cold Storages' owners asked for a higher hiring charges. This, he argues, operates as an estoppel against their questioning the maximum hiring charges. The application for renewal had to be moved before the fixation of the hiring charges, which appears to be fixed annually in the State for each potato season. Secondly, if a Cold Storage owner says that he will accept the maximum hiring charges to be fixed by the Government, it means that he is willing to accept a reasonable fixation. This does not mean that the State Government can act arbitrarily and fix too lower hiring charges and thereafter claim that the Cold Storage owners are estopped from challenging the fixation of rental charges. 24. It is then submitted that if the Cold Storage owners had asked for higher hiring charges and the Licensing Officer had refused to grant a licence or refused to renew it on the ground that the Cold Storage owners had asked for more than the maximum hiring charges fixed or to be fixed by the Government, an appeal would lay to the Tribunal under section 36 of the Act and the Tribunal would have decided the matter and this decision would be final. The Tribunal, under section 36 of the Act, cannot go into the validity of an order under section 29 of the Act of the State Government fixing the maximum hiring charges. This argument cannot be accepted. 25. The learned Advocate-General then argues that there was a contract between the Cold Storage owners and the potato growers that the potato growers (cold storage owners? would only charge such hiring charges as were fixed by the State Government under section 29 of the Act. This argument cannot be accepted. 25. The learned Advocate-General then argues that there was a contract between the Cold Storage owners and the potato growers that the potato growers (cold storage owners? would only charge such hiring charges as were fixed by the State Government under section 29 of the Act. This, it is submitted, constitutes a contract of bailment and the charges were fixed by the contract as being prescribed by the State Government. This Court cannot interfere in the contract between the Cold Storage owners and the persons who store their produce in the Cold Storage. No plea that there was a contract between the Cold Storage owners and the potato growers, was taken in the counter-affidavit. Further, in some cases, groups of potato growers who had stored their produce in the cold Storages have been impleaded as parties. They have also not taken this case. The State Government has not shown any receipt or other documents to show that a specific contract had been entered into between the producer and the Cold Storage owners indicating the maximum hiring charges for storage. In this circumstance, it is not possible to accept this argument. 26. In the end, the learned Advocate-General has also contended that the petitioners challenge to the Notification under Arts. 14 and 19 of the Constitution fixing the maximum hiring charges is barred by virtue of the provisions of Art. 31-C of the Constitution, which reads as under : "31-C. Savings of laws giving effect to certain directive principles : Notwithstanding anything contained in Art. 13, no law giving effect to the policy of the State towards securing all or any of the principles laid down in Part IV shall be deemed to be void on the ground that it is inconsistent with, or takes away or abridges any of the right conferred by Art. 14 or Art. 19 and no law containing a declaration that it is for giving effect to such policy shall be called in question in any court on the ground that it does not give effect to such policy Provided that where such law is made by the Legislature of a State, the provisions of this Article shall not apply thereto unless such law, having been reserved for the consideration of the President, has received his assent." 27. We asked the learned Advocate General as to whether the Act had been reserved for consideration of the President and had received, his assent. He stated, at the Bar, that the assent of the President had not been sought and received. He, however, stated that prior to the enactment of the Acts by letter No. 13/10/76-Judi. the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, issued by Sri P. K. Dutta, Deputy Secretary to the Government, addressed to the Secretary, Government of U. P., Legislative Department- I, it is clear that the President had accorded his previous sanction under Art, 304(b) for introduction of the U. P. Regulation of Cold Storages Bill, 1976 and consequently there was no need for the Act to have been reserved for the consideration of the President and for receiving his assent, as required by the provision to Art. 31-C of the Constitution of India. It is submitted here that the Bill would have to go to the same authority, namely the President, and there must be a needed sanction under Art. 31-C of the Constitution. A perusal of the letter of Sri. P. K. Dutta, Deputy Secretary to the Government of India, would indicate the considerations in the mind of the President, when the previous sanction was given. The letter runs as follows : "No. 13/10/76-Judi. MOST IMMEDIATE From Government of India/Bharat Sarkar, Ministry of Home Affairs/Grih Mantralaya To The Secretary to the Govt. of U. P. Vidhayika Anubhag-I Lucknow Subject : The Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Cold Storage Bill, 1976 Sir. I am directed to refer to your letter No. 1119/XVII-V-1-133/75 dated 11th March, 1976,on the subject mentioned above and to say that the President accords previous sanction under Article 304 (b) of the Constitution for introduction of the Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Cold Storages Bill, 1976. However the following observation brought to the notice of the State Government for consideration and necessary amendment in the Bill. (a) Some of the multipurpose Cold Storages in Uttar Pradesh might also be keeping dairy products, eggs and poultry products etc., for which there is no mention under chapter/clause 2 (a) of the Bill although there is a reference to fish, shall-fish etc. (a) Some of the multipurpose Cold Storages in Uttar Pradesh might also be keeping dairy products, eggs and poultry products etc., for which there is no mention under chapter/clause 2 (a) of the Bill although there is a reference to fish, shall-fish etc. it is, therefore, felt that it would be appropriate if this clause is revised as under : "Agricultural Produce" included produces of Agriculture or Horticulture, animal husbandry, pisciculture and all articles of food or drink wholly or partly made from any of them". (b) Clause 3 (b) provides that Cold Storages Advisory Board shall include a representation of the Agriculture Marketing Advisor to the Government of India to be nominated by such Government. The words to be nominated by such Government may be deleted as nomination to be made by Agricultural Marketing Advisor could be made directly by him and need not be made through Government of India. (c) The Bill contains clause 70 which lays down that every licensee shall be bound to comply with such directions of the Licensing Officer under this Act as may be issued by him from time to time. There are no guidelines for exercise of the power issuing directions by the Licensing Officer and there is no other specific provision in the legislation containing the powers of the particular matter. It is presumed that the intention of the State Government is to provide for compliance of the directions of the Licensing Officer necessary for the purposes of the giving effect to the provisions of the Act. In the circumstances, it is considered necessary that appropriate guidelines in the matter of exercise of power to issue direction may be included in clause 38. 2. The receipt of this letter may kindly be acknowledged. Sd/- P. K. Dutta - (P. K. Dutta) Deputy Secretary to the Govt. of India". 28. A perusal of this letter will indicate that the President was not considering the question as to whether the Act should be given immunity from the challenge under Arts. 14 and 19 of the Constitution. An immunity from the challenge under Arts. 14 and 19 of the Constitution should not be lightly assumed and there must be full compliance of Art. 31-C of the Constitution before any immunity can be claimed for the Act and the notification issued thereunder. 14 and 19 of the Constitution. An immunity from the challenge under Arts. 14 and 19 of the Constitution should not be lightly assumed and there must be full compliance of Art. 31-C of the Constitution before any immunity can be claimed for the Act and the notification issued thereunder. The Act contains no declaration that it has been enacted to give effect to securing all or any of the principles enshrined in Part IV of the Constitution. 29. The learned Advocate General has submitted that no declaration was required as even in the absence of a declaration the protection of Art. 31-C of the Constitution of India is available to the Act as it was enacted to give effect to the directive principles. In this connection, he relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Basantibai, AIR 1986 SC 1466 at p. 1475 (Paragraph 13). This case is an authority for the proposition that if there is a nexus between the object of the Act and all or any of the principles laid down in Part IV of the Constitution of India, the protection of Art. 31-C of the Constitution will be available to the Act. 30. A contrary view however, seems to be expressed by Mr. Justice K. K. Mathew in the case of Keshavanand Bharti v. State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461 at page 1961, Paragraphs 1778 and 1779 that it is doubtful whether a notification issued under an Act which has the protection of Art. 31-C, also has its protection. Mr. Justice Mathew observed in paras 1778 and 1779 of the judgment as under : "1778. I should have thought that Article 31-C is a proviso to Art. 13 (2) in that it enables Parliament or State Legislatures to pass laws of particular type which would not be deemed to be void even if they violate the provisions of Arts. 14, 19 and 31. 1779. 1 have no doubt that 'law' in Art. 31- C can only mean a law passed by Parliament or the State legislatures. The word must take its colour from the context." 31. The learned Advocate General has argued that the Act has been made, inter alia, in pursuance of the provisions of Art. 39 (b) and (c) of the Constitution. 1 have no doubt that 'law' in Art. 31- C can only mean a law passed by Parliament or the State legislatures. The word must take its colour from the context." 31. The learned Advocate General has argued that the Act has been made, inter alia, in pursuance of the provisions of Art. 39 (b) and (c) of the Constitution. Article 39 of the Constitution, in so far as it is relevant, is reproduced hereunder : "39. Certain principles of policy to be followed by the State. The State shall, in particular, direct its policy towards securing (a) . . . ." (b) that the ownership and control of the material resources of the community are so distributed as best to subserve the common good; (c) that the operation of the economic system does not result in the concentration of wealth and means of production to the commom detriment, (b) . . . ." 32. The learned Advocate General points out that potato is an essential commodity and the Act ensures the distribution of potato for the common good. This argument is in order to secure the benefit of Art. 39 (b) of the Constitution. In order to get the benefit. of Art. 31 (c) of the Constitution he urges that the fixation of maximum hiring charges will prevent the concentration of wealth and means of production to the common detriment. 33. There is no control in the Act on the sale of potato or on the fixation of the prices of potato to be sold in the market. So clause (B) of Art. 39 of the Constitution cannot be attracted. The Act apparently does not deal with the concentration of wealth and means of production. Therefore, the provisions of Art. 39(c) would also not be attracted. 34. The Statement of Objects and Reasons attached to the Act has been reproduced earlier. It shows the purpose for which the enactment was made. It demonstrates that the provisions of Art. 39 (b) and (c) of the Constitution of India were not in mind of the Legislature. 35. The learned Advocate General has argued that, in the absence of potato growers being made parties to the writ petition, no relief can be given to the petitioners. It demonstrates that the provisions of Art. 39 (b) and (c) of the Constitution of India were not in mind of the Legislature. 35. The learned Advocate General has argued that, in the absence of potato growers being made parties to the writ petition, no relief can be given to the petitioners. In this connection the learned Advocate General relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Prabodh Verma v. State of U. P., AIR 1985 SC 167 . A number of persons who had stored potato in the Cold Storages, were impleaded on their own applications in the writ petitions. The relief sought is against the making of the notification. 36. In reply, Sri S. P. Gupta referred to another decision of the Supreme Court in the case of General Manager, Southern Central Railway v. A. V. R. Siddhanti, AIR 1974 SC 1755 wherein in para 20 it was observed as follows : "20. As regards the second objection it is to be noted that the decisions of the Railway Board impugned in the writ petition contain administrative rules of general application, regulating absorption in permanent departments fixation of seniority, pay etc. of the employees of the erstwhile Grain Shop departments. The respondents-petitioners are impeaching the validity of those policy decisions on the ground of their being violative of Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The proceedings are analogous to those in which the constitutionality of a statutory rule regulating senority of Government servant is assailed. In such proceedings the necessary parties to be impleaded are those against whom the relief is sought, and in whose absence no effective decision can be rendered by the Court. In the present case, the relief is claimed only against the Railway which has been impleaded through its representative. No list or order fixing seniority of the petitioners vis-a-vis particular individuals, pursuant to the impugned decisions, is being challenged. The employees who were likely to be affected as a result of the re-adjustment of the petitioners seniority in accordance with the principles laid down in the Board's decision of October 16, 1952, were, at the most, proper parties and not necessary parties, and their non-joinder could not be fatal to the writ petition". 37. In the instant case also, a statutory notification issued by the State Government under section 29 of the Act is under challenge. 37. In the instant case also, a statutory notification issued by the State Government under section 29 of the Act is under challenge. The persons who have stored their potato, can, at most, be described as proper parties and not necessary parties. Hence this objection of the learned Advocate-General also fails. 38. The learned Advocate-General's argument that the cases cited by the counsel for the petitioners about the price fixation and reasonable return to the manufacturer or seller have no relevance to the present case. The charges which the petitioners realise, are according to his submission, in the nature of rental. It is submitted that rental can be fixed, as has been done by various Rent Control laws, below the market value. Running of a Cold Storage is a business. The Cold Storage owners not only hire out space but also provide various services including refrigeration which is costly. The running of a cold storage is a business and consequently this argument of the learned Advocate General can also not be accepted. 39. The learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri S. P. Gupta, has urged that this Court, under Art. 226 of the Constitution, should itself determine the hiring charges and it has the power to do so. As mentioned earlier, the potato growing season has come to an end and there is no great emergency requiring this Court to enter into an exercise to determine what should have been the maximum hiring charges. It is appropriate to leave this function to the State Government. 40. In the result, the writ petitions succeed and are allowed. The Notification No. 3006/ XII-4-501-1985 dated May 26, 1986, is quashed. The State Government is directed to re-determine the maximum hiring charges for the period from 15.2.1986 to 30.11.1986, in accordance with law, as speedily as possible. 41. Under the interim orders of this Court, some of the Cold Storages have charged more than Rs. 19-00 per quintal as hiring charges. The amount can be retained by the Cold Storages' owners. The State Government is directed to re-determine the maximum hiring charges for the period from 15.2.1986 to 30.11.1986, in accordance with law, as speedily as possible. 41. Under the interim orders of this Court, some of the Cold Storages have charged more than Rs. 19-00 per quintal as hiring charges. The amount can be retained by the Cold Storages' owners. However, if the State Government fixes the maximum hiring charges lower than this Court allowed the petitioners to charge, the amount shall be refunded to the State Government for payment to the potato growers, if the potato growers can be identified and if the potato growers cannot be identified, this amount can be spent by the State Government for the welfare of the potato growers in the region where the Cold Storages are situated. The petitioners are entitled to their costs. 42. Certificate for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court that the case is a fit one for appeal to the Supreme Court is asked for and is refused.