R. K. ABICHANDANI, J. ( 1 ) THESE two matters were heard alongwith Special Civil Application No. 4771 of 1993 since there were common questions involved In these Writ petitions the petitioners have challenged the rationalisation order being General Order No. 1/90 and the grounds of challenge against that rationalisation order are same as were raised in Special Civil Application No. 4771 of 1993 For the reasons contained in the judgment in Special Civil Application No. 4771 of 1993 a copy whereof is annexed hereto the challenge against the impugned rationalisation order is rejected ( 2 ) IN these two petitions the petitioners have also challenged amendment No. 16 dated 24 4. 92 made in the General Order No. 1/90 By the said amendment item No. 8 1 (a) of the General Order No. 1/90 which related to exemption of salt traffic was deleted Exemption to iodised salt under item 9 (a) was however continued According to the petitioners though the route was rationalised in view of the exemption granted for salt traffic they were continued to be charged freight at the shortest/cheapest route under Rule 125 (1) (b) of the Goods Tariff This exemption having been withdrawn the petitioners became liable to pay freight at the rationalised route which is the longer route The petitioner of Special Civil Application No. 4772/93 purchases sell and dispatches the same from various stations of Western Railway in Gujarat namely-Windmill Maliya Miyana and Khambhalia to the factory of the petitioner at Garhwa Road Railway Station on the Eastern Railway. The shortest route is via Godhra-Ratlam-Bhopal- Katnimyrwara and Singrauli and the longer route is via Bayana-Tundla. ( 3 ) THE petitioner of Special Civil Application No. 6945 of 1993 is having salt works at Sama Khaili in Kutch District and purchases salt and dispatches the same from various stations of Western Railway in Gujarat - namely Sama Khaili Gandhidham Chirai and Khambhalia to the factory of the petitioner at Renukoot Railway Station of the Eastern Railway and they were being charged on the basis of the shortest and cheapest route which is via: Godhra - Ratlam - Bhopal - Katnimyrwara and Singrauli. The longer route is via Bayana - Tundla. The longer route is via Bayana - Tundla. ( 4 ) IT was contended on behalf of the petitioners in addition to the contentions which were raised in Special Civil Application No. 4771 that the withdrawal of exemption on salt traffic was not in public interest and therefore the amendment was in violation of the provision of Section 27a of the Railways Act In their affidavit in reply filed in Special Civil Application No. 4772 the Railway administration has stated that previously all sores of salts including non-iodized salt were used for human consumption However thereafter it has been made compulsory that only iodized salt can be used for human consumption in view of the health hazards created by non-iodized salt which is generally used by chemical and other industries. The State Government has issued notifications making it compulsory to use iodized salt only for human consumption Under these circumstances the exemption was continued in respect of the iodized salt and in respect of other kind of salt the route was rationalised and exemption was discontinued Even other items like petrol lime-stones coal cement the used for industrial purposes were not being given any exemption and freight was required to be paid in respect thereof on the basis of their actual transportation route However for the iodized salt used for human consumption the exemption was continued because it was a basic requirement of everyone. It is thus clear that the question whether exemption should be continued or no in respect of salt other than iodized salt appears to have been duly considered and the aspect of public interest is taken care of. When all other goods were chargeable at the rates applicable to rationalised route there was no need to continue exemption of ordinary salt which was generally used for chemical and other industries. It can not be said that in withdrawing the exemption the concerned authority acted arbitrarily Therefore the challenge against the amendment by which the exemption of salt traffic was withdrawn cannot be sustained on this ground. It can not be said that in withdrawing the exemption the concerned authority acted arbitrarily Therefore the challenge against the amendment by which the exemption of salt traffic was withdrawn cannot be sustained on this ground. ( 5 ) THE impugned amendment in the General Order No. 1 of 1990 was also challenged on the ground that the amendment is not made by the Central Government itself It has been noted in the decision rendered in Special Civil Application No. 4771 of 1993 that the Central Minister who exercised the powers of the Central Government by virtue of allocation of business made by the President had authorized by virtue of Rule 3 of the Transactions of Business Rules made by the President that his subordinates in the Ministry of Railway (Railway Board) to dispose of the business pertaining to matter under Section 27a of the Act These Officers cannot be called delegates but were the limbs of the Ministry and could exercise the powers of the Central Government as directed by the concerned Minister. The Minister concerned could not have attended to every item of work himself and the Transaction of Business Rules appropriately empowered him to authorise Officers working in the Ministry to do the business For the same reasons as have been indicated in the decision rendered in Special Civil Application No. 4771 of 1993 the challenge against the impugned amendment on this count is rejected. ( 6 ) FOR the reasons contained in the decision rendered in Special Civil Application No 4771 of 1993 (copy annexed) and the above reasons both these petitions are rejected Rule is discharged with no order as to costs in each of these two matters. ( 7 ) THE ad interim relief which may be operative in these matters is extended for a period of six weeks from today at the request of the learned Counsel for the petitioners to enable the petitioners to approach the appellate forum. Petition Rejected. .