JUDGMENT By this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution the petitioner seeks a mandamus against the respondents to continue the C. C. T.V. System at Ujjain Railway Station and further to grant the petitioner a contract for another period of three years on suitable terms and conditions. It is an admitted position that for sometime the C. C. T. V. System was introduced and continued at Ujjain Railway Station of the Western Railway. The petitioner was the contractor for running this system and admittedly he was allowed to run his full term of contract which expired on 8.10.91. Now it is the insistence of the petitioner that this C.C.T.V. system should be continued. It is his pleaded case that he had applied for renewal of the contract to continue in the hope that the respondents would renew the contract, which continued till 28.4.92. On 28.4.92 the petitioner was informed that C.C.T.V. system was stopped at Ujjain Railway Station. It was as a result of policy decision k1ken by the railway authorities. The petitioner filed a civil suit praying for an injunction against the respondents seeking to restrain them from stopping the functioning of C.C.T. V. system at Ujjain Railway Station. The trial Court granted injunction which was vacated by the appellate Court, and it may be on sound reasons. It was in pursuant to decision taken by the Board that the C.C.T.V. system had been stopped at railway station. It is an admitted position that the petitioner was allowed to run his full term of contract so much so it was extended, he cannot compel the authorities to renew or revive the system which the authorities do not consider profitable. The argument advanced by the learned counsel is that the system being continued at Jaipur and other stations, why it should not be at Ujjain. No ground of discrimination has been made out or can be made out simply because a railway station on the western line has more facilities as compared to another. The concept of equality is not in mechanical terms or in all its physical facets. It is not a case where a contractor is not allowed to bid alongwith others or excluded or deprived of his right to his bid. The concept of equality is not in mechanical terms or in all its physical facets. It is not a case where a contractor is not allowed to bid alongwith others or excluded or deprived of his right to his bid. On the other hand a particular advertising system introduced for sometime may be on experimental basis is insisted and sought to be continued after expiry of the term of contract. The renewal of such system at one station does not create a vested right in the petitioner which can be enforced through the agency of the Court. Admittedly a civil suit was filed and the appellate Court has vacated the injunction. The appellate order is not attacked or challenged in this petition, probably advisedly so. A direction is sought for railway authorities for reintroducing C.C.T.V. system at Ujjain Railway Station: It is not a case of some essential services sought by the traveling public but a contractor insisted for such reintroduction of C.C.T.V. system. On being specifically asked as to what vested legal enforceable right the petitioner has, the learned counsel was at pains to point out any. In the circumstances, this petition fails and is dismissed summarily without notice.