These three writ petitions have been preferred by the respective writ petitioners for a direction-from this Court to the respondents not to change the loading stations from Chirai to Gandhinagar as per direction of the respondent No. 2 the Salt Commissioner, Govt of India. 2. As the petitioners grievance is similar and same, all the petitions are taken together and I decided to dispose of the matter by a common judgment. 3. Petitioners are salt dealers, having import licences to import iodised salt, were appointed as a nominee for the purpose of import of iodised salt by Govt of Assam in the second quarter of 1997. Against their names respective loading stations were shown as Chirai in Gujarat and the destination was shown as New Guwahati. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that one rake of iodised salt requires about 2,000 MT of salt and therefore, the petitioners immediately made arrangements for the purchase of iodised salt at Chirai. That from approval letter dated 22.7.97 it was found that without any information the respondent Railway Board changed the loading station from Chirai to Gandhidham unilaterally without any intimation to the petitioners; that petitioners submitted representations before the State Govt and sent Fax Messages to the respondents Salt Commissioner (respondent No. 2) and the Railway Board (respondent No. 1) to restore Chirai as loading station, which is within the same Division. Further it is contended that the State Govt also issued message to the respondents for retaining Chirai as the loading station. Petitioners' grievance is that in spite of this respondents did not change the loading station from Gandhidham to Chirai as suggested by the Govt of Assam, though in most of the cases, suggestion of the State Govt are maintained. Petitioners alleged discrimination meted out to them as the decision to change the loading station from Chirai to Gandhidham was taken by respondent No.2 unilaterally causing grave prejudice to the petitioners, who made arrangements to load salt at Chirai Railway Station. 4. I haye heard learned counsel for the parties at length. Affidavit-in-opposition has been filed on behalf of respondent No.2. It is averred that the decision to change the loading station was taken by the Salt Commissioner and in view of the facts and circumstances there was no illegality in the decision. 4. I haye heard learned counsel for the parties at length. Affidavit-in-opposition has been filed on behalf of respondent No.2. It is averred that the decision to change the loading station was taken by the Salt Commissioner and in view of the facts and circumstances there was no illegality in the decision. It is further averred that the petitioners are not supposed to act upon the inter department/.Govt communication between the Govt of Assam and the. Salt Commissioner till the final programme for movement of iodised salt was approved by Railway and circulated to all concerned by respondent No.2, that as the loading capacity of Gandhidham Station is three times of Chirai Station. Railway advised the Salt Commissioner for programming movement from Chirai and Gandhidham loading stations in the ratio of 1:3 due to technical and operational problems and, to avoid unnecessary pendency of demands, hunching of rakes at Chirai Station. 5. Petitioners in their affidavit-in-reply pointedly stated that in 1997 about equal number of rakes Were loaded from Chirai and Gandhidham station and also prayer for changing the loading station was accepted to by the respondents. It is further stated that though the distance between those two stations is only 22 KMs it is difficult to carry such a huge quantity of salt from Chirai to Gandhidham Petitioners have annexed some orders passed in similar cases to show that the Salt Commissioner issued directions whereby the loading stations were changed from Gandhidham to Lavaspur. 6. Mr. B K Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent Railway has submitted that the loading station had to be changed by the Salt Commissioner from one place to another considering the operational exigencies. It is further submitted that for movement of salt rakes to Assam, a programme is drawn up in advance in collaboration with the Railways, Salt Commissioner and State of Assam and. pursuant to such programme State nominees are allotted rakes for transportation of salt. These nominees cannot demand, as a matter of course, a particular Railway station for loading of salt. It has been further submitted that programme in question has already lapsed and, therefore, the parties are required to register their indents within the time limit fixed. Petitioners having not done so, their allotments have already lapsed and the same cannot be revived granting the prayer made in the writ petition. It has been further submitted that programme in question has already lapsed and, therefore, the parties are required to register their indents within the time limit fixed. Petitioners having not done so, their allotments have already lapsed and the same cannot be revived granting the prayer made in the writ petition. That the particular programme was for the particular quarter of 1997 and the same having been lapsed, there is no question of reviving the same now. Further, every year such programme is drawn up and thus the 1997 programme cannot be revived for the petitioner, in the subsequent years. The petitioners have already forfeited their quota for the particular period and the sponsorship of that period cannot be validated now. 7. In support of his submission Mr. Sharma has referred and relied on the case of Viklad Coal, AIR 1984 SC 95 wherein working of the Indian Railways network has been fully explained by the Apex Court. In such a network, it was submitted that, involving programmed movement of salt, coal etc there is no room for entertaining any claim like that of the petitioners. 8. From the above facts and circumstances of the case, I hold that the petitioners have no right as such to claim the change of the programme of the movement of salt as prayed for in these writ petitions. Moreover, it is seen that allotment have already lapsed as the particular programme was for a particular period of 1997 therefore, the same cannot be revived in the subsequent years. 9. In view of the above discussions I find no merit in the writ petitions and accordingly the petitions are dismissed. However,-1 make no order as to costs.