Judgment :- In all these writ petition, the petitioners challenge the enhancement of the licence fee in respect of the book stalls at various Railway Stations, in which they have been given licence for running the book stalls. 2. The case of the petitioners is that they are all unemployed graduates and the book stalls are being run by them in the Railway stations on the basis of the licence, which has been granted to them. They have been allowed to sell daily newspapers such as The Hindu, The Indian Express etc., and the periodicals viz. Ananda Vikatan, Kalki, Kumudam etc., on the basis of commission upto 12% on the sold out newspapers, periodicals etc. The petitioners have to invest their own principal capital on purchase of the newspapers, periodicals etc. Their only source of regular income is derived from the commission offered by the newspaper agents. Apart from capital investment on the purchase of the newspapers and periodicals, the petitioners have to incur expenditure towards utilisation of electricity energy, charges towards the payment made to the delivery boys, who arrange to procure the daily newspapers and periodicals etc., from the agents and deliver the same to the petitioners and towards sundry expenses. The impugned upward revision is totally unjust, besides exemptions have been given to the book stalls managed by the philanthropists and social organisations, which is totally a discrimination. 3. The said upward revision of licence fee had been challenged on the following grounds:- .(i) The abnormal increase of licence fee is in violation of Article 19(1)(g) which guarantees a fundamental right for profession. .(ii) The stalls are being operated by the unemployed graduates, but exemptions had been granted to philanthropists and social organisations holding them to be privileged groups, which is discriminative. (iii) The revision of the licence fee for the books stalls with retrospective effect from August 2006 without due notice to the petitioners is violative of principles of natural justice. (iv) There is no reasonable increase in the licence fee and the said revision had been made without properly appreciating the various aspects. Thus, the impugned order revising the licence fee had been attacked on the ground of unreasonable increase, discrimination, unilateral and without an opportunity being given to the petitioners, while directing them to pay the increased rate retrospectively. 4. Thus, the impugned order revising the licence fee had been attacked on the ground of unreasonable increase, discrimination, unilateral and without an opportunity being given to the petitioners, while directing them to pay the increased rate retrospectively. 4. Counter affidavit had been filed by the second respondent along with the applications for vacating the interim order, wherein the following facts have been set out:- The petitioners were given licence to run book stalls under the unemployed graduate scheme. As per the directives of the Railway Board, the petitioners are duty bound to pay 12% commission to railways. The petitioners cannot compare themselves with that of the philanthropic and other social organisations, which are also given licence for running the book stall. They are doing it on service basis to help the poor. Further, it is averred in the counter affidavit that the books sold by them are mainly on the subjects of spiritual, moral, yoga, meditation etc. and they cannot be compared with that of the petitioners. The Railway administration which spends crores of rupees for providing facilities and infrastructure to the passengers have to take into consideration the various aspects while fixing the licence fees. Thus the counter affidavit seeks for dismissal of the writ petitions. .5. The third respondent, who had impleaded himself as party in these writ petitions had filed the affidavit in support of the impleading applications which sets out the following facts:- .The third respondent is a corporation incorporated by the Government of India to take over the rights and responsibilities of Railways in respect of granting and dealing with such licensees, which are being handled by Railway administration. Specific orders have been issued by the Railway Board on 14. 2007 for handing over the books stall licence all over the Indian Railways at A, B and C category stations to IRCTC and to defend the cases pertaining to the book stalls. The Railway Board had issued instructions for collection of license fee at 12% of the annual sales turn over under letter dated 27. 2006. In terms of the letter issued by the Railway Board, the licence fee in respect of all the book stalls, except the stalls run by the philanthropic and social organisations, was enhanced and the licensees were advised to pay the difference in amount in accordance with the policy decision taken to enhance the fees. 2006. In terms of the letter issued by the Railway Board, the licence fee in respect of all the book stalls, except the stalls run by the philanthropic and social organisations, was enhanced and the licensees were advised to pay the difference in amount in accordance with the policy decision taken to enhance the fees. The philanthropic and social organisations are running various service projects to help poor, orphans, destitute women etc., and hence they cannot be equated with the petitioners. It is for the administration to decide about the fixation of licence fee, considering various factors that includes increase in passenger traffic, increase in the price of the material sold, besides the objective to increase the revenue of the administration and consequently the public exchequer. If the writ petitioners are not willing to pay the enhanced licence fee, they are at liberty to surrender the stalls, if they are of the opinion that the licence fee is exorbitant. Thus, the counter affidavit seeks for dismissal of the writ petitions. .6. I have heard Mr. L. Chandrakumar, learned counsel appearing for some of the writ petitioners and Mr. V. Chokalingam learned counsel appearing for some of the other writ petitioners and Mr. Su. Srinivasan learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and Mr. R. Thiagarajan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent Corporation. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners mainly contended that there can be a marginal and reasonable increase and the increase made by the respondents is exorbitant, totally unjust and uncalled for. It has been urged on behalf of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that discriminating between them and that of the philanthropists and social organisations, who are having book stalls in the Railway stations is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The unilateral increase made by the respondents without any due notice to the petitioners that too retrospectively is liable to be set aside. 8. Per contra, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the third respondent contended that the increase has been made on the basis of the letter of the Railway Board dated 27. 2006, which directed the collection of licence fee at 12% of the annual sales turn over. 8. Per contra, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the third respondent contended that the increase has been made on the basis of the letter of the Railway Board dated 27. 2006, which directed the collection of licence fee at 12% of the annual sales turn over. It is for the administration to decide about the fixation of the licence fee, considering the various aspects such as increase in passenger traffic, increase in the price of the material sold and for augmenting the revenue for the railway administration. These are matters, which are to be decided by the authorities taking into account the various aspects which cannot be questioned before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Further, it has been urged by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the third respondent that the petitioners cannot be equated with that of the books stalls run by philanthropists and social organisations, since they are running various service projects to help poor, orphans, destitute women etc. and thus they cannot be equated with that of the petitioners. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 adopted the arguments made by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent Corporation. 10. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners , the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the third respondent. 11. It is the case of the petitioners that the licence fees has been enhanced by the authorities viz., the Railway Administration exorbitantly, and it is not reasonable increase. The petitioners being unemployed graduates are running the book stalls for very number of years and they are wholly depending upon the income therefrom. In view of the sudden increase in the licence fee, they will be put to great hardship. However as stated already, it is the case of the respondents that such increase is necessitated in view of the various factors. 12. Whether the increase of licence fee is reasonable or not cannot be decided by this Court, while deciding the matter under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. What is reasonable to the petitioners may not be reasonable to the respondents and vice versa. Absolutely, there is no yardstick to fix the licence fees. 12. Whether the increase of licence fee is reasonable or not cannot be decided by this Court, while deciding the matter under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. What is reasonable to the petitioners may not be reasonable to the respondents and vice versa. Absolutely, there is no yardstick to fix the licence fees. When such is the position, the petitioners cannot be heard to say that the increase of licence fee is unreasonable and exorbitant. The Railway Administration had decided to increase the licence fee considering the fact that there is increase in passenger traffic and for augmenting the revenue for railways. In such matters, the power of the Court is very limited, especially when exercising its power under Article 226 of the Constitution. These are administrative matters which have to be decided by the authorities concerned. 13. The next submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is that there is discrimination between the petitioners and the philanthropists and social organisations, which are running books stalls in the Railway stations. It has been explained by the respondents that philanthropists and social organisations are running various service projects to help the poor, orphans, destitute women and uncared aged people with service motive. Definitely, they cannot be equated with that of the petitioners. The authorities have got power to discriminate between one sector and another sector on reasonable grounds. Only if it is unreasonable discrimination, this Court can interfere and direct the authorities to consider their case with that of the other category. Hence this contention raised by the petitioners should also be countenanced. 14. The Ministry of Railways has issued various commercial circulars about the increase of licence fee and the reasons thereof. Those circulars cannot be tested by this Court exercising its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The High Court of Kerala while considering the case of the Indian Railway Caterers Association in W.A.No.3044 of 2001 (Indian Railway Caterers Association Vs. Union of India) in similar circumstances has held that it would be wholly irregular to doubt the wisdom of the Administration and for the only reason that it may not be agreeable to ones conventional views, the same cannot be interfered with . Paragraph 56 of the said judgment is usefully extracted hereunder:- 56. Union of India) in similar circumstances has held that it would be wholly irregular to doubt the wisdom of the Administration and for the only reason that it may not be agreeable to ones conventional views, the same cannot be interfered with . Paragraph 56 of the said judgment is usefully extracted hereunder:- 56. In the changing life style and global economy, so as to be in the business, drastic policy decisions have to be conceived and implemented and at times it may appear to be unconventional. As the Supreme Court said in Government of India Vs. HDC (1993 (3) SCC 499) change in policy does not by itself vitiate the action taken pursuant thereto, if they re reasonable and rational. The view has been reiterated in M.V.Al Quamar V.Tsavliris Salvage (International) Ltd. ( 2000 (8) SCC 278 ). It will be wholly irregular to doubt the wisdom of the Administration, and for the only reason that it may not be agreeable to ones conventional views. The additional income does not go to private hands, and is pumped back to the system, to make it more healthy and ultimately caters to better public interest. In this view, the Court is constrained to adopt a realistic attitude. The Railway Board, it appears have bestowed thought to revamp the organisation, and are introducing policies to cope up with the changing situation. The petitioners have therefore to adapt themselves to the changes, and cannot insist them to stick on to the old patterns." The matter was taken to the Honble Apex Court and the Apex Court had also confirmed the order of the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court. 15. Considering the above facts and circumstances, the irresistible conclusions that could be arrived at are as follows:- .(i) the fixation of enhanced licence fee is within the purview of the respondents, which cannot be decided by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. .(ii) It is within the jurisdiction of the authorities concerned to decide what is the licence fee that has to be fixed. (iii) There could be a reasonable classification by the respondents and the same cannot be questioned by the petitioners on the ground of discrimination. .(ii) It is within the jurisdiction of the authorities concerned to decide what is the licence fee that has to be fixed. (iii) There could be a reasonable classification by the respondents and the same cannot be questioned by the petitioners on the ground of discrimination. (iv) The book stalls run by the petitioners cannot be equated with the book stalls run by philanthropists and social organisations for the reason that they are not running the book stalls on profit motive and moreover the amounts collected by way of selling those books is utilised for various welfare measures. 16. In fine, the order of the first and second respondents increasing the licence fee payable by the petitioners do not require any interference by this Court. Hence these writ petitions are dismissed. However, the petitioners being unemployed graduates are running the book stalls for very number of years and their livelihood seems to depend only on the earnings through books stalls in the Railway stations, and hence the authorities viz., the respondents 2 and 3 have to take into consideration the said aspect. It is open to the petitioners to approach the respondents 2 and 3 requesting them to fix a reasonable increase in licence fee. As and when the petitioners approach the respondents, the respondents have to consider the above aspect and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law within a reasonable time. Consequently, the connected M.Ps are closed. No costs.