JUDGMENT R.K. Merathia, J.- The petitioner has prayed for a direction upon the respondents for payment of road transportation charges at the rate of Rs. 13.50 Paise per quintal per kilometer for lifting of levy sugar from FCI Godown, Ranchi to various places in the district of Gumla for the period April, 1994 to February, 1995 alongwith interest @ 18% per annum and for other reliefs. 2. The petitioner's case is based on a Division Bench judgment of the Patna High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 1165 of 1994(R) dated 24th March, 1995 (Annexure 5) (hereinafter referred to as "the first judgment"). It is submitted that the said judgment was confirmed by the Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal No. 19960 of 1995 (Annexure 6). 3. Counsel for the respondents relied on another Division Bench judgment of the Patna High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 1350 of 1992 with analogous cases dated 11th January, 1996 (Annexure R-2/D) (hereinafter referred to as "the second judgment"). 4. From the first judgment it appears that the grievance of the petitioners in the said writ petition was that the dealers who had to transport for lesser distance are getting more than those who had to trans port the levy sugar for longer distance. The basis for fixing the rate was questioned but the petitioners claimed that they should be paid at least the rate fixed for those dealers who were transporting within 75 kms. It was held in the first judgment that the petitioners were entitled to get the same transportation charges at the rate of 13.50 Paise per quintal per km., which the other dealers were getting, but only from April, 1994 when they filed the writ petition. 5. From the second judgment it appears that the decision of the Ministry of Food and Civil Supplies dated 20th January, 1989, that the dealers are not entitled to transportation charges of levy sugar by road for a distance beyond 75 kms. was challenged as iilegal and unreasonable. It was contended that there were several such places where there is no rail facilities and, therefore, the dealer was bound to transport sugar through road. It was held that the Central Government had given liberty to the State Government to obtain permission for transportation rates beyond 75 kms. was challenged as iilegal and unreasonable. It was contended that there were several such places where there is no rail facilities and, therefore, the dealer was bound to transport sugar through road. It was held that the Central Government had given liberty to the State Government to obtain permission for transportation rates beyond 75 kms. for special reasons like non-availability of railway facility, imposition of minimum restriction by railways or due to any other reason, to avoid unnecessary hardship and delay. In these circumstances the Court did not interfere with the said circular. The High Court noted that the Central Government had already communicated it's decision to make payment of transportation charges @ 13.50 per quintal per km. up to 75 kms. 6. Mr. H.K. Mehta, appearing for the State of Jharkhand could not dispute the said position. However, he submitted that the petitioner filed this writ petition on 5.2.1998 and, therefore, as per the first judgment, he is not entitled to the relief claimed, as in that judgment, the Court allowed the prayer from the date of filing of the writ petition which was 1994 in the first case. In my opinion, such submission cannot be accepted as, in the present case, the period involved is April, 1994 to February, 1995 and this writ petition was filed on the basis of the first judgment of this Court. 7. Vide Annexure 2, petitioner submitted two bills of Rs. 28,298.48 Paise and Rs. 9,421.72 Paise for the difference of transport charges paid to the petitioner and the charges claimed by him at the rate of Rs. 13.50 Paise per quintal per km. These calculations have not been disputed. 8. Admittedly, the petitioner transported the sugar. He is claiming only @ Rs. 13.50 Paise per quintal per km., which was the rate for a distance up to 75 kms., whereas he transported beyond 75 kms. In such situation, it is not necessary to ask the State of Jharkhand to apply for permission to the Central Government and that too at such distance of time. Accordingly, petitioner is held entitled to the said amounts but without interest. The respondent no. 3 will pay the said amounts to the petitioner within two months from today, failing which, the said amount will carry simple interest at the rate of nine per cent per annum from April, 1994 till the date of payment. 9. Accordingly, petitioner is held entitled to the said amounts but without interest. The respondent no. 3 will pay the said amounts to the petitioner within two months from today, failing which, the said amount will carry simple interest at the rate of nine per cent per annum from April, 1994 till the date of payment. 9. With these directions, this writ petition is allowed in part. However, there will be no order as to costs.