TIRATH S. THAKUR, J. ( 1 ) THE Central Government is in terms of Sec. 30 of the Railways Act 1989 empowered from time to time to fix by general or special order rates for the carriage of passengers and goods for the whole or any part of Railways in this Country. Different rates can according to the said provision be fixed for different class of goods subject to such conditions as may be specified. The rates so prescribed by the Central Government placed fruits like Anar, Apples, Cherries and Grapes in Scale C. P. 2 of the Notification issued on the subject. With effect from 1-4-1992 the said fruits were shifted from Scale C. P.-2 to Scale C. P. 1, with the result that carriage charges for such fruits by Railway, also got correspondingly increased. Aggrieved the petitioner who is carrying on business in the purchase and sale of fresh grapes has filed this petition challenging the inclusion of grapes in C. P.-1 scale, primarily on the ground that the classification made by the Government between expensive fruits like Anar, Appels, Cherries and Grapes on one hand and inexpensive fruits on the other, was arbitrary and offensive to Article 14 of the Constitution besides being in violation of the provisions of Sec. 70 of the Railways Act. ( 2 ) ). Section 70 of the Act, inter alia provides that Railway Administration shall not make or give undue preference or advantage to or in favour of any particular person or any particular description of traffic in the carriage of goods. The power to fix rates however, is specifically conferred upon the Central Government under Sec. 30 which envisages different rates being fixed for different classes of goods, subject to such conditions as may in that regard be stipulated. A conjoint reading of Sec. 30 and 70 of the Act, therefore leaves no manner of doubt that the Central Government can from time to time fix such rates as may in its opinion be reasonable depending upon the nature of the goods entrusted for carriage to the Railways. The question then is whether rates specified by the Government for expensive fruits by the deletion of the said fruits from scale C. P. 2 to Scale C. P. 1, can be termed to be unreasonable, irrational or discriminatory in any way to warrant interference. The question then is whether rates specified by the Government for expensive fruits by the deletion of the said fruits from scale C. P. 2 to Scale C. P. 1, can be termed to be unreasonable, irrational or discriminatory in any way to warrant interference. The Respondents have the objections filed by them justified the impugned re-classification on the ground that expensive fruits like Grapes, Anar, Apples and Cherries, were a class by themselves on which an additional benefit by way of a higher freight charges could be imposed and eventually passed on to the customers without bringing about any invidious discrimination between the transportation of such fruits on the one hand and what may be termed as inexpensive fruits on the other. An additional reason given for the classification of the expensive fruits for purposes of hire carriage charges is that the Railways had to raise additional resources to off-set the severe resource crunch faced by it and to neutralise the ever increasing cost of the inputs. ( 3 ) ON behalf of the petitioner it was contended that the additional tariff could not be justified on the ground that the Railways had a resource crunch and that classification of the fruits into two categories namely expensive and inexpensive was illusory. I do not however find any substance in that criticism. In the matter of fixing the rates for carriage as in the case of fixing the rates for taxation, the State enjoys a greater latitude and play at the joints. That is so because the process of classification of goods for purposes of taxation and so also for purposes of fixation of freight charges is inherently complex and may more often than not fall beyond judicially manageable dimensions. Courts have therefore conceded greater discretion to Authorities both legislative and otherwise in the matters of fixing fiscal levies. Interference with such legislative decisions has been extremely infrequent to say the least. It is only in cases where the classification made has been found to be so palpably irrational, imprudent and outrageously unfair that no reasonable person could support the same, that the Courts have intervened. Decisions of the Supreme Court on the subject are a legion, and the law so well settled that it does not need to be restated. It is only in cases where the classification made has been found to be so palpably irrational, imprudent and outrageously unfair that no reasonable person could support the same, that the Courts have intervened. Decisions of the Supreme Court on the subject are a legion, and the law so well settled that it does not need to be restated. Seen in that context, the classification made by the Government between expensive and inexpensive fruits, does not in my opinion suffer from any unfairness or irrationality of the kind that could make the same discriminatory so as to fall foul of Article 14 of the Constitution. There is indeed a fair amount of logic in holding that fruits like Anar, Apples, Cherries and Grapes are expensive and consumed by a relatively affluent section of the Society who can bear the additional burden of the Railway Freight on the carriage of such fruits without materially affecting the prospects of the sale of such fruits by intermediatories like the petitioner. The classification of the said fruits, which was for limited period and has been reversed by shifting the said fruits to Scale C. P. 2 once again does not therefore suffer from any constitutional or other infirmity so as to warrant interference from this Court. It is also evident that the indirect burden on the stocks despatched by the petitioner must have been passed on to the consumers by a corresponding hike in the price of the commodity in the market. Even if one were to take a view different from the one that I have taken as regards the validity of the classification yet any interference at this stage would lead to undue enrichment of the petitioner for it would be difficult to refund to the consumer what has already been recovered from him by way of additional freight. ( 4 ) IN the result, I see no reason to interfere. This writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed, but in the circumstances without any orders as to costs. --- *** --- .