A. K. YOG, R. K. RASTOGI, JJ. ( 1 ) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri Q. H. Siddiqui, advocate on behalf of respondents No. 2 and 3 as well as learned standing counsel on behalf of respondent No. 1. ( 2 ) THE controversy is no more res integra. Petitioners are owners of rickshaws and let out their rickshaws on hire. Their grievance is that they should not be fastened with liability to pay Rs. 161 per rickshaw per year, as licence fee, and that they are prepared to pay Rs. 75 per rickshaw. ( 3 ) IN Writ Petition No. 61911 of 2005, Akhilesh Kumar v. State of U. P. and Ors. , a Division bench of this Court, considered aforesaid issue and passed order dated 26. 4. 2006; copy of the said order is Annexure-6 to the writ petition. A statement is made before us that this order has not been challenged and has become final. ( 4 ) RELEVANT para 2 reads: we have heard counsel for the petitioner, the standing counsel and Sri Q. H. Siddiqui for the respondents. Sri Q. H. Siddiqui made a statement before this Court that the person who owns a rickshaw and is driving the same, is exempted from paying licence fee. However, the persons who are doing business and letting out their rickshaws, are required to deposit licence fee of Rs. 75 per rickshaw per year and only this is being charged. In view of this, there is no necessity to issue any direction. In case any one is doing business of letting out rickshaws and from him more than Rs. 75 per rickshaw per year being charged, then he will be at liberty to file fresh writ petition. ( 5 ) IN the said order it is mentioned that any person who is doing business of letting out rickshaws and from whom more than Rs. 75 per rickshaw per year is charged shall be at liberty to file fresh writ petition. ( 6 ) RELYING on the above observations petitioners have approached this Court. ( 7 ) PETITIONERS have not filed relevant Government order. Sri Q. H. Siddiqui. learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Nagar Nigam has placed copy of relevant Government order dated 16. 12. 1997. According to the said Government order. Rickshaw operated by owner (niji chalit)has to pay Rs. ( 7 ) PETITIONERS have not filed relevant Government order. Sri Q. H. Siddiqui. learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Nagar Nigam has placed copy of relevant Government order dated 16. 12. 1997. According to the said Government order. Rickshaw operated by owner (niji chalit)has to pay Rs. 75 and those given on hire have to pay Rs. 150. Said Government order has been amended by another Government order dated 5. 2. 2004, Annexure-1 to the writ petition. Para 2 of the said Government order specifies that Rs. 75 imposed upon rickshaw (niji chalit) is being abolished. It was further clarified that this abolition was with respect to those rickshaw owners who themselves purchase it and were plying it themselves. ( 8 ) THE petitioners have filed copy of the representation dated 13. 5. 2006. mentioning that under high Court order, dated 26. 4. 2006, aforesaid amount of licence fee charged from rickshaw given on hire is reduced from Rs. 150 to Rs. 75 per rickshaw per year against the order reproduced above. There is no finding to the above effect in the above Judgment. Actually the above G. O. of 16. 12. 1997, was not produced before the above Bench and the Bench on seeing the G. O. dated 5. 2. 2004, which was before it, ordered that a rickshaw owner plying his own rickshaw will not have to pay licence fee of Rs. 75 per year as provided in the G. O. , and those rickshaw owners who let out rickshaws on hire shall have to pay licence fee as usual mentioning it to be Rs. 75 per year as the G. O. dated 16. 12. 1997, was not before the Court. The rate at which such rickshaw owners have to pay licence fee was not finally decided in that judgment and that is why it was provided that whenever a higher amount is charged, those rickshaw owners may come again and file a writ petition. Any how when the rate of licence fee leviable on such rickshaw owners has not been reduced by any subsequent G. O. , the petitioners cannot get benefit of the above observation of the Court in the case cited above made in the absence of the relevant G. O. ( 9 ) NO foundation has been laid by the petitioners for challenging the aforesaid Government order dated 16. 12. 12. 1997, with respect to rickshaw and rickshaw trolley which are being let out for business purpose to others and hence we find no ground to interfere or quash the licence fee imposed on such rickshaw or rickshaw trolley which are let out for business purpose to rickshaw pullers. ( 10 ) NO Government order was placed before us to substantiate the allegation that Nagar Nigam is charging Rs. 161 per rickshaw per year, as licence fee, from the rickshaw or rickshaw trolley which are being let out for business purpose to the rickshaw pullers. As such this allegation cannot be believed. ( 11 ) THE position in this way is that the Nagar Nigam can validly realize Rs. 150 per year as licence fee from the rickshaw owners who give rickshaws on hire to rickshaw pullers. ( 12 ) THE petition has no merit. It is accordingly, dismissed. ( 13 ) NO order as to costs. . .