JUDGMENT A.N. Varma, J. - This group of petitions has been filed by the owners of various cold storage claiming two reliefs, one, for quashing the notification dated March 14, 1980 issued by the State Government under S. 29 of the U.P. Regulation of Cold Storages Act 1976 (the 'Act' for short) and, two for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to permit the petitioners to realise the storing charges at the rate of Rs. 16/- from Aug. 1, 1980. In the course of hearing of the petitions, however, Sri S. P. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioners, concentrated mainly on the second relief claimed in the petition. 2. The petitions are being disposed of by a common judgment as the points raised are the same. 3. In our judgment in Civil Misc. Writ No. 2939 of 1987, Sheetgrah Sangh, U.P. Kanpur v. The State of Uttar Pradesh, delivered on 7-10-1987 (reported in 1988 All LJ 14) the aforesaid Act and the scheme underlying thereunder have been analysed by us in considerable detail. In particular, the precise nature and scope of power under S. 29 of the Act which authorises the State Government to fix maximum hiring charges have been examined by us in depth. We have held that a notification issued under S. 29 is a legislative instrument and consequently is subject only to such challenge as is available in respect of a legislative activity. We do not hence propose to dilate on these matters in view of our decision in petition No. 2939 of 1987 (supra). 4. These petitions were mostly filed in Oct. 1980, i.e. long after the issue of the impugned notification dated March 14, 1980. The immediate occasion for approaching this Court appears to have been the hike in electricity tariff enforced by the U.P. State Electricity Board with effect from Aug. 1, 1980. The case of the petitioners is that as a result of this enhancement in the electricity charges the running costs of the cold storages went up and consequently the State Government should have exercised its powers under S. 29 and issued another notification enhancing the maximum charges fixed earlier by it so that the cold storage owners were not put to any loss. Relying on this circumstance Sri S. P. Gupta submitted that the omission of the Government to issue a fresh notification after Aug. Relying on this circumstance Sri S. P. Gupta submitted that the omission of the Government to issue a fresh notification after Aug. 1, 1980 enhancing the maximum charges has resulted in failure to exercise a jurisdiction or power which vested in the State Government. Learned counsel placed. particular reliance on paragraph 18 of writ petition No. 8638 of 1980 in which it has been asserted that electricity charges were enhanced by 10.75% per unit with effect from Aug. 1, 1980 as a result of which running costs of the cold storages have also correspondingly increased of which the Government was bound to take note by issuing appropriate notifications under S. 29 meeting this contingency. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we find no merit in the above contention. The first observation which we wish to make is that the petitioners' contention completely ignores the nature of power exercisable under S. 29 of the Act and the scope of judicial review of the exercise of such a power. As held by us in writ petition No. 2939 of 1987 (reported in 1988 All LJ 14) (supra), this Court cannot under Article 226 of the Constitution sit in appeal over the decision of the Government in fixing maximum charges or, not revising the same under S. 29. The legislative policy behind the enactment as well as the considerations relevant for the determination of maximum hiring charges under S. 29 were present in the mind of the State Government, and, if the impugned notification does not violate any provision of the Constitution or the Act under which it has been issued, this Court would not be justified in either quashing the impugned notification or issuing a direction to the State Government to revise the same merely on the ground that there has been a hike in one of the several items of operational costs involved in the running of cold storages. The petitioners have completely failed to make out any such case of either violation of any of their rights under the Constitution or that the procedure prescribed under the Act for exercise of power under S. 29 was not followed by the State Government or that the maximum hiring charges fixed by the Government under the impugned notification were so patently unreasonable as to amount to an arbitrary exercise of power impinging on Article 14 of the Constitution. 6. 6. As mentioned above, the only ground canvassed by Sri S. P. Gupta was that based on the hike in the electricity charges with effect from Aug. 1, 1980. In regard to the effect of the hike in electricity charges we may refer to para 11 of the counter-affidavit in which it has been asserted that in fixing maximum charges all the items of expenditure spread throughout the whole year are examined. Any possible variations in the various cost inputs during the season in question get automatically absorbed in the maximum charges fixed by the State Government under section 29. Further consumption of electricity is only one of the several items of likely expenditure considered by the State Government. And it is an overall impact of cost inputs which has to be considered and not the expenditure involved in a single item viewed in isolation. It h asserted further that the enhancement in electricity charges effected from Aug. 1980 had hardly any impact as the consumption of electricity during the months of Oct. and Nov. is very low and the bulk of electricity must have been consumed prior to the enhancement in the tariffs. 7. Be that as it may according to the version of the respondents in the counter affidavit, hike in the electricity charges did not have any such significant effect as to warrant revision of maximum charges. As mentioned above, maximum charges are fixed on an overall assessment of the cost factor spread throughout the year and it is not possible for this Court on the material existing on the record to hold that the hike in electricity charges was such as to render the fixation of maximum charges effected in March 1980 obsolete so as to warrant interference by this Court. No case has, therefore, been made out for issue of a writ of mandamus. 8. It must also be borne in mind that the power vested in the State Government under S. 29 is essentially legislative in character. We cannot direct the State Government, on the material existing on the record, to exercise that legislative function and fix hiring charges afresh. 9. As regards the validity of the impugned notification date March 14, 1980 hardly any arguments were addressed by the learned Counsel for the petitioners. We cannot direct the State Government, on the material existing on the record, to exercise that legislative function and fix hiring charges afresh. 9. As regards the validity of the impugned notification date March 14, 1980 hardly any arguments were addressed by the learned Counsel for the petitioners. In any case, we have perused the affidavits exchanged between the parties on the case and find that no case for interference in the same within the limited ambit of judicial inquiry permissible in such cases has been made out. 10. The petitions are hence liable to be dismissed. Under the interim orders granted by this Court, the petitioners were permitted to realise storing charges at the rate of Rs. 16/- per quintal subject to the condition that the petitioners shall deposit the difference of Re. 1/- per quintal in a separate account to 'be maintained by them and, subject to the further condition that, in case the petitioners failed, the extra amount realised by them from each respective hirrer shall be refunded to them within one month of the decision of the writ petition. In view of the facts that the petitions are being dismissed, the petitioners shall have to refund the excess amount realised by them under the interim orders of this Court to the concerned hirers within one month from today. 11. In the result, the petitions fail and are dismissed with costs. The excess amounts realised by the petitioners under the interim orders of the Court in excess of the amount fixed under the impugned notification shall be deposited by them with the Licensing Officer of the concerned district together with the list of hirers within 6 weeks from today. The Licensing Officer shall thereupon disburse the amount amongst the respective hirers expeditiously as far as possible within a month from the date of the deposit.