Judgment :- These petitions were listed before this Court on being specially ordered by the Honourable Chief Justice vide his order dated 16. 2008 and posted for final disposal. 2. In this batch of writ petitions, the petitioners were all licencees to store Petroleum otherwise than in bulk quantity not exceeding 25,000 Litres. 3. It is stated by the petitioners that they have been doing the business of getting the kerosene in bulk in terms of the licence conditions and storing the same in barrels. For the purpose of supplying the same to the retailers, they take delivery of kerosene from the point of supply and keep it stored in barrels in the areas notified to them. According to them, they have invested substantial amounts in the purchase of drums for storing kerosene and the life span of such barrels is very limited and periodically they will have to replace the barrels from time to time. 4. The commission for selling kerosene is fixed by the Central Government and the issue relating to the restriction of use and fixation of ceiling of price of kerosene is controlled by the Kerosene (Restriction on use and Fixation of Ceiling Price) Order, 1993 framed under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 [for short, E.C. Act]. Under Section 4 of the Act, restrictions have been made on the dealers storing the supply of kerosene in any other place other than the place of storage and also selling it with the price fixed by the Central Government or the Government Oil Company. 5. It is stated by the petitioners that on the demand made by the Tamil Nadu Petroleum Merchants Association, the Central Government increased the commission for 1 KL of kerosene at Rs.126/-. Even though the Central Government had increased the commission rate, it is their grievance that the State Government had not implemented the same. .6. After several representations made by the petitioners, the first respondent State Government, by proceedings dated 5. 1999, fixed the commission at Rs.101/-per KL. It was stated that the State Level Co-ordinator had communicated to the Commissioner for Civil Supplies, the Ex-depot rates of Superior Kerosene Oil effective from 28.02.1999 and consequent on the revision of Excise Duty, the ex-depot rates became effective from 20.4.1999 consequent on the revision in Railway freight rates. 1999, fixed the commission at Rs.101/-per KL. It was stated that the State Level Co-ordinator had communicated to the Commissioner for Civil Supplies, the Ex-depot rates of Superior Kerosene Oil effective from 28.02.1999 and consequent on the revision of Excise Duty, the ex-depot rates became effective from 20.4.1999 consequent on the revision in Railway freight rates. A separate communication was also given with reference to the delivery rates for the hilly areas. Therefore, the Commissioner for Civil Supplies informed all the District Collectors the revision of margin available to wholesale dealers, which is as follows:- 7. It was specifically mentioned therein that the margin of Return on Capital Equipment of Rs.30/- per KL is not allowed for the dealers like the petitioners having barrel storage having licence in Form XI and they will have a total margin of Rs.71/- per KL only. 8. It was stated that in order to avoid dual pricing of Kerosene at consumer level, the total margin allowed for the wholesale dealers was taken as Rs. 101/- uniformly for all the dealers and for all the wholesale centres. Therefore, it was directed that the dealers having licence (Form XI) having barrel storage should remit to the Government account at the rate of Rs. 30/- per KL. The District Supply Officers were directed to collect the amount from the wholesale dealers having barrel storage in advance and were directed to remit it into the Government account. It was also stated that because of this, there cannot be any increase in the retail pricing. Pursuant to this order, consequential proceedings were issued by the District Supply Officers directing the wholesale dealers to collect Rs.30/- per KL (1000 Litres) of Kerosene. It is against this communication, the present writ petitions have been filed. 9. Initially, the petitioners have not made Union of India as a party and subsequently, on an application being taken out, the Union of India was also impleaded as a party to some of the writ petitions. 10. It was stated by the petitioners that the impugned communication charging Rs.30/-per KL on Return of Capital Equipment to the wholesale dealers having tanker storage with licence under Form 13 and denying the same to the petitioners having barrel storage under form 11, was discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. .11. 10. It was stated by the petitioners that the impugned communication charging Rs.30/-per KL on Return of Capital Equipment to the wholesale dealers having tanker storage with licence under Form 13 and denying the same to the petitioners having barrel storage under form 11, was discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. .11. It is now stated by them that licences were issued only under the Kerosene Regulation Order and in both the cases, the licences were issued under Rule 3 and the conditions of licences are one and the same. It is also stated that the trade practice for the last three decades was uniform but allowing the tanker storage dealers to retain Rs.30/- and denying the same to the dealers in to barrel storage was unjustified and the petitioners were not heard on the same. It is also stated that both the licencees are equal and they cannot be treated unequally in the matter of retention of Return on Capital Equipment. 12. The writ petitions have been admitted and the petitioners are also enjoying interim order from paying back the amounts collected in terms of the impugned order. 13. On behalf of the State Government, a detailed counter affidavit dated 22.02.2002 has been filed in W.P. No. 8335 of 2001. It was stated by the State Government that out of the 519 wholesale dealers in Kerosene operating in the State, 343 dealers are having underground storage with dispensing facility and 176 dealers are operating with the conventional barrel system. It was also stated that it is open to the petitioners to modernize the storage facility and they availed the Return on Capital Equipment. The tanker dealers are also taking the Kerosene from the supply point to the storage point. The petitioners allegation of loss of Kerosene through evaporation because of the temperature variation was denied by the State. It was also claimed that the alleged loss claimed by the dealers may not be correct because the Oil Companies supplied the products to wholesale dealers according to the dip measurement and, therefore, the question of loss at the filling point may not arise. Even the loss while filling the barrels are also minimal and the downstream barrel leakage, if any, occurrs will not affect the wholesale dealers. .14. On behalf of the second respondent, a counter affidavit dated 28. Even the loss while filling the barrels are also minimal and the downstream barrel leakage, if any, occurrs will not affect the wholesale dealers. .14. On behalf of the second respondent, a counter affidavit dated 28. 2000 was filed by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited. They had stated that the use of tankers require higher investment and in the matter of fixation of Return on Capital Equipment, Tamil Nadu Petroleum Dealers Association was also heard by the State Government and after hearing their views only, the amounts were fixed. Therefore, it is not for them to state that the fixation has been done without opportunity given to them. The dealers of barrel storage, having collected the excess amount from the consumers, are bound to pay back the same to the State Government as otherwise, it would amount to unjust enrichment. 15. Counter affidavits have been filed by the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. in W.P. Nos. 1588 and 8261 of 2001 refuting the allegations made by the petitioners. It is stated by them that the cost of establishing an underground tanker storage facility with dispensing facility will cost around Rs. 4.5 lakhs whereas the dealers storing kerosene in barrels will have to spend only around Rs.50,000/-for buying 75 barrels for storage of 15 KL Kerosene. It was also stated that the wear and tear and replacing all the barrels cannot be a capital expenditure and the argument that the Form XI licencees are in no way less equal to Form XIII licencees was also denied. It was also stated by them that all of them do not belong to the same class and allowing Return on Capital Equipment for the tanker storage was based upon a reasonable classification. Therefore, the allegation of violation of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution does not arise. It was also stated that it is open to the petitioners to establish an underground tanker storage and dispensing facilities and claim the benefit. 16. On behalf of the State Government and the Commissioner for Civil Supplies, another counter affidavit dated 10.01.2005 was also filed in W.P. No. 5442 of 2004. It was stated by the State Government that while the expenditure involved in erection of bulk storage facility involves large space and cost and periodical maintenance to prevent damage and leakage, in barrel storage, the cost involved is much minimal. It was stated by the State Government that while the expenditure involved in erection of bulk storage facility involves large space and cost and periodical maintenance to prevent damage and leakage, in barrel storage, the cost involved is much minimal. Large capital investment is required for tanker storage whereas the same is not true in respect of the barrel storage. While the retail price will have to be fixed at the uniform rate by allowing Return on Capital Equipment to different class of persons, at the maximum, the margin of profit for the petitioners may come down. But, in no way, it will make the petitioners to go out of business. Therefore, the argument based upon Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution cannot be sustained. 17. Even with reference to Article 14 of the Constitution, merely because both the wholesale dealers are dealing in Kerosene, they do not become equals. The Return on Capital Equipment is based upon the expenditure involved in setting up the facility. 18. On behalf of the Union of India, Mr. P. Wilson, learned Assistant Solicitor General submitted that by communication dated 25. 2008, the Government of India, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas has issued the following circular, which is as follows:- "I am directed to refer to the above subject to say that the existing rates of Dealers Commission on Kerosene Oil as communicated vide this Ministrys letter No. P-20028/2/2000-PP dated 28th February, 2007 are as under: Wholesale dealers (Form XV) Rs.243/KL Wholesale dealers Rs.200/KL (other than Form XV) 2. It was decided that the Commission would be reviewed on a regular annual basis. In view of this, a review of the matter was accordingly made and the Committee of Directors (Marketing) of the Oil Marketing Companies was asked to make suitable recommendations in this regard. The matter has been examined in detail by the Committee. After careful consideration of the recommendations of the Committee, it has been decided to revise the rates of commission of Kerosene for wholesale Dealers as per the following details: Wholesale dealers (Form XV) Rs.255/KL Wholesale dealers Rs.212/KL (other than Form XV) 3. The above rates of commission will serve as guidelines to the district / local authorities fixing the retail (consumer) selling price of kerosene in urban / semi urban and rural areas. The above rates of commission will serve as guidelines to the district / local authorities fixing the retail (consumer) selling price of kerosene in urban / semi urban and rural areas. If any States / Union Territories have revised the rates of commission on their own, they may consider reworking it to bring them in line with these guidelines. 4. The State Governments are requested to take necessary action in the matter under intimation to this Ministry. 5. The revised rates of Dealers Commission will be effective from the date of issue of this letter." Therefore, the learned Assistant Solicitor General submitted that in the light of the revised pricing for the wholesale dealers, the commission margin of dealers will go up and all the writ petitions should be dismissed as infructuous. 19. In any event, he submitted that the decision of the Government of India to provide Rs.30/- per KL on the Return of Capital Equipment is based upon a policy with sound basis and hence, the same cannot be attacked in the light of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 20. First of all, the matter itself relates to dealing in essential commodity covered by the Essential Commodities Act and the Control Order framed thereunder. The petitioners cannot make it appear that the market must be free or they have right to free trade in the said commodity and if the commission is not attractive, there is no compulsion on the dealers to carry on the business. The method of barrel storage has become obsolete and keeping in tune in the modernization, it is also open to the petitioners to opt for tanker storage and avail the same return. 21. It is on the basis of these rival contentions, the issue will have to be decided. The short question that arises for consideration in these writ petitions is as to whether the impugned order of the respondents in granting a Return on Capital Equipment to dealers with tanker storage facilities and not allowing the same to the barrel storage is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 22. The short question that arises for consideration in these writ petitions is as to whether the impugned order of the respondents in granting a Return on Capital Equipment to dealers with tanker storage facilities and not allowing the same to the barrel storage is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 22. The Supreme Court in Bhagwati Saran and another v. The State of U.P. [ AIR 1961 SC 928 ] dealt with the case of prosecution under the Iron and Steel of Production and Distribution Order 1941 and the question came up for distinction between the registered stockholders and control stockholders. The following passage found in paragraph 15 of the said judgment may be usefully reproduced:- Para 15: ".... Differentiation could never per se be discrimination, nor is there any presumption that the adoption of different rules for groups differently situated is unequal treatment violative of Article 14. On the other hand, the presumption is the other way and the party that alleges unjustifiable discrimination should establish it to the satisfaction of the Court. We consider that there is no material on the basis of which an argument could be sustained that the special conditions to which learned counsel adverted contained any element of unfair or irrational discrimination to attract Article 14." .23. The Supreme Court in J. Pandurangarao v. The Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission, Hyderabad and another [ AIR 1963 SC 268 ], while dealing with the classification permitted under Article 14 of the Constitution, observed in paragraph 7 as follows:- .Para 7: "The scope and effect of the provisions of Article 14 can no longer be the subject-matter of any doubt or dispute. It is well-settled that though Article 14 forbids class legislation, it does not forbid reasonable classifications for the purposes of legislation. When any impugned rule or statutory provision is assailed on the ground that it contravenes Article 14, its validity can be sustained if two tests are satisfied. The first test is that the classification on which it is founded must be based on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things grouped together from others left out of the group; and the second is that the differentia in question must have a reasonable relation to the object sought to be achieved by the rule or statutory provision in question. As the decisions of this Court show, the classification on which the statutory provision may be founded may be referable to different considerations. It may be based on geographical considerations or it may have reference to objects or occupations or the like. In every case, there must be some nexus between the basis of the classification and the object intended to be achieved by the statute, vide Shri Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Shri Justice S.R. Tendolkar ( 1959 SCR 279 : AIR 1958 SC 538 ]...." .24. In the light of the above touchstone, it can safely be concluded that the petitioners have not made out the case. They are also eligible for Return on Capital Equipment. Except for stating that their licence conditions are similar to that of tanker storage dealers, they have not come out with any plea about the precise investment made by them and the consequential denial for return on their equipment. In fact, the contention raised by the Oil Corporations and the State Government that barrel storage dealers will have to invest very little compared to tanker storage, had not been denied by them. It must also be stated that their alleged loss during supply point to the storage point was also denied by the Oil Companies. The petitioners have not made out any case for the purpose of showing that they are equally eligible for the Return of Capital Equipment. 25. The Central Government, as contended by Mr. P. Wilson, learned Assistant Solicitor General, has also fixed the commission commensurate with the increased cost. Therefore, the petitioners cannot complain about the loss in doing their business. In any event, the Return on Capital Equipment is based upon different criteria and it depends on the volume of investment and not on the similarity in the business. 26. Though not in the same context, but in the context of fee fixation to be made by self-financing educational institutions, the three Judges Bench of the Supreme Court in Modern School v. Union of India and others [ 2004 (5) SCC 583 ] dealt with the aspect of an institution investing money for establishing the institution, should have a reasonable profit after providing any investment and expenditure and it should take into account the need to run the institution and provide facilities. (See: Paragraphs 16 and 17). .27. (See: Paragraphs 16 and 17). .27. The same view was also expressed bythe Supreme Court in Islamic Academy of Education and another v. State of Karnataka and others [ 2003 (6) SCC 697 ]. Speaking for the Bench, S.B. Sinha, J., in his concurring opinion in paragraph 154 of the said judgment, had observed as follows:- .Para 154: "The fee structure, thus, in relation to each and every college must be determined separately keeping in view several factors, including facilities available, infrastructure made available, the age of the institution, investment made, future plan for expansion and betterment of the educational standard etc. The case of each institution in this behalf is required to be considered by an appropriate Committee...." 28. In the light of the same, the contentions raised by the petitioners will have to be necessarily rejected and accordingly, all the writ petitions will stand dismissed. However, the parties are allowed to bear their own costs. All connected Miscellaneous Petitions will stand closed.