ORDER Civil Appeal No. 6533 of 1995 1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and order dated 6-10-1988 passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Writ Petition No. 13078 of 1984 the appellant has filed this appeal. Before the High Court it was contended by the appellant that the appellants manufacturing plant of vanaspati was situated at Kurnool, Secunderabad and Hyderabad during the relevant period i.e. 1-11-1977 to 6-8-1983. The appellant was supplied its requirement of imported oils from the State Trading Corporation Depot located at Visakhapatnam Port area. For transporting the imported oil from Visakhapatnam to its plant, the appellant was incurring an expenditure of Rs 325 per tonne whereas applying the "Fergusson formula" it was being reimbursed only an amount of Rs 175. With the result, on each tonne of imported oil, the appellant was obliged to incur an extra expenditure of Rs 150. As against this, the manufacturers whose units were situated close by the depot maintained by STC, namely, manufacturers in the North were required to incur less costs, as in some cases the depot was situated within their own premises. It is contended that to these manufacturers the cost of transport was only Rs 260. It was also contended that in addition to sales tax the appellant was required to pay octroi. As against this, in almost all Northern States there was no sales tax nor was octroi levied nor was it paid. It was, therefore, submitted that the appellant was required to incur higher cost than the manufacturers whose factories were situated in northern part. Therefore, it was contended that the fixation of the uniform selling price was arbitrary and discriminatory and the respondent be directed to reimburse the said amount to the appellant. 2. For the said grievances, the appellant and others preferred writ petitions before this Court. When the petitions came up for hearing on 8- 2-1982 the Court passed the following order: "In these writ petitions counsel for the petitioners have expressed a desire to withdraw the petitions provided that the Central Government and State Trading Corporation are prepared to consider the representations which they propose to make. When the petitions came up for hearing on 8- 2-1982 the Court passed the following order: "In these writ petitions counsel for the petitioners have expressed a desire to withdraw the petitions provided that the Central Government and State Trading Corporation are prepared to consider the representations which they propose to make. The learned Attorney-General agrees that representations which the petitioners and other manufacturers of vanaspati may make will be considered carefully and objectively from all relevant points of view including the questions which are covered by the undertakings given to the petitioners which have now lapsed. We allow the petitioners to withdraw the writ petitions. We hope that the Central Government and State Trading Corporation will take a fair and final decision on the representations of the petitioners and other manufacturers of vanaspati as expeditiously as possible, preferably before 1-9-1982. The petitioners agree that they will make their representations within one month from today. If the Central Government decides to appoint a committee to go into the various questions which arise in these petitions, the Committee, we are sure, will give a proper hearing to the manufacturers of vanaspati individually, if necessary. The amounts payable towards inland freight equalisation charges which the petitioners or some of them did not pay as a result of the stay orders passed by various High Courts became payable when the stay orders were vacated. Those amounts shall be paid subject to such convenience as State Trading Corporation may grant. We recommend that such of the petitioners who are liable to pay the amounts as aforesaid, may be granted the facility of paying the same in four equal monthly instalments with interest at 12% per annum from the due date of payment with monthly rests. There will be no order as to costs." 3. Admittedly, in pursuance of the order passed by this Court, the Central Government constituted a committee known as Parmeswaran Committee to consider the problem. The Committee submitted its report and after considering the same at various levels, the Central Government decided to accept the same and implement it with effect from 6-8-1983. It is the grievance of the petitioners that the Central Government acted arbitrarily in not giving retrospective effect to the report. It is, therefore, prayed that the respondents be directed to reimburse to the petitioner the difference in payment of sales tax as well as the freight charges. It is the grievance of the petitioners that the Central Government acted arbitrarily in not giving retrospective effect to the report. It is, therefore, prayed that the respondents be directed to reimburse to the petitioner the difference in payment of sales tax as well as the freight charges. 4. That petition was heard by the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court and after considering the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant elaborately the petition was dismissed. Hence, this appeal. 5. Instead of reiterating what has been stated by the High Court, we would mention the contentions raised and reasons recorded by the High Court. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant before the High Court that this was a fit case where the Central Government must be directed to consider the issue afresh. However, the High Court rejected the said prayer by holding that once the petitioner has withdrawn the writ petition, a fresh writ petition for the very same relief, was not required to be considered or entertained. The High Court also considered that the decision to implement the formula evolved by the Parmeswaran Committee prospectively was a conscious decision which meant negativing the plea to give it retrospective effect and that the appellant was not clear as to the date from which retrospectivity should be given to it as in the first instance, it has claimed that it should be given retrospectivity from 1-11-1977 and in the alternative from 8-2-1982, that is, from the date when this Court directed the constitution of a committee to consider the grievance of the appellant. The High Court held that this was a policy decision arrived at by the Central Government in its administrative capacity and, therefore, no interference was called for in the writ petition. On merits also the Court considered that "Fergusson formula" satisfied everyone when it was evolved in the year 1977 but it was found to be inadequate only after November 1980. Not only that, the Court pointed out that freight charges constituted a very small portion of the overall costs of production of vanaspati. With regard to sales tax the Court observed that it is for the petitioner to prove that it had not passed on the said burden to the consumers. 6. Not only that, the Court pointed out that freight charges constituted a very small portion of the overall costs of production of vanaspati. With regard to sales tax the Court observed that it is for the petitioner to prove that it had not passed on the said burden to the consumers. 6. Considering the aforesaid reasons recorded by the High Court, in our view, it cannot be said that the impugned order calls for any interference at this stage in this appeal particularly when policy decision is taken by the Central Government with regard to the reimbursement of extra costs prospectively. Hence, this appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. WP (C) No. 273 of 1989 7. In view of the order passed above, this writ petition is dismissed.