JUDGEMENT 1. In all the writ applications there are similar grievances, if not common relief, therefore they were all clubbed and listed together for final disposal. 2. All the petitioners are licensee vendors/caterers under the East Central Railway and have been doing the job of vending at several Railways stations under the respondents on the basis of license granted to them by the concerned Railway authorities. Many of them have been in business of vending or catering for many a years, if not a decade or two. 3. The standard agreement which every petitioner had to sign contains the terms and conditions of the license by which the parties would be bound. The license fees have been fixed by the respondents from time to time and are amenable to revision. As per the old agreement the petitioners have been paying the license fee regularly. But the reason for them to approach the High Court is the demands which have come to be made from them by letter issued in the year 2005. The amount is variable. One such a demand which has been annexed with CWJC No. 9725 of 2005 as Annexure-3/A is being noticed in some detail to cull out the basic submissions which will flow from the same. Letter dated 26.6.2005 addressed to one J.P. Singh & Brothers, vending contractor of Buxar Station states that the catering and vending fee has been revised provisionally to a figure per month from 1.7.99 which again stood revised at enhanced rate from 1.4.2000 and based on the said revision a figure of Rs. 12,35,201/- has been demanded as arrears. Similar is the story with regard to other petitioners. 4. The demand has been termed as astronomical and illegal since they are from a retrospective date by all these persons who are holding vending or catering licenses. It is such demands upon the petitioners which are subject matter of challenge in all these writ applications. 5. The first submission is that enhancement from a retrospective date is not permissible. Any revision in license fee will take effect from the date of such revision and would be prospective in nature and enhancement from the year 1999 being made or claimed in the year 2005 is per se arbitrary. 6. The second submission is that the rate of revision is neither reasonable nor fair or rational. Any revision in license fee will take effect from the date of such revision and would be prospective in nature and enhancement from the year 1999 being made or claimed in the year 2005 is per se arbitrary. 6. The second submission is that the rate of revision is neither reasonable nor fair or rational. For example a contractor holding a fruit stall was expected to pay a sum of Rs. 262.47 as per the agreement dated 1.4.1985 stands revised many times over and in some cases even 100 percent. Petitioners were never informed or told in advance. Revision or demand has been made without giving any proper notice or information. Such illegal demands and the quantum worked out by them will virtually oust them from their business and leave them without any source of earning or livelihood. Since most of these petitioners are venders engaged in this business for many a decades, if not from one generation to other, the decision of the respondents has the effect of starving the petitioners and their families if not reduce them to the level of beggars. None of them has capability to start life afresh. 7. The respondents were directed therefore to state their position and shed light on their decision. 8. As per the counter affidavit filed in CWJC No. 9725 of 2005 the stand of the Railway is that 1992 policy under which the license fee was fixed and being paid by the licensees had become too old. A new catering policy was brought into effect from 2000, keeping in mind the increase in the earning of the vendors since the number of trains and passengers had gone up many folds over a period of time. There is provision for revision in the license fee agreement. The Railways have right to enhance the license fee. Earlier the petitioners were paying license fee at the rate of 5 percent of their monthly sale turnover but in terms of 99 policy decision the license fee was revised with effect from 1.7.99 to 12 percent of monthly sale. The revision was effected from 1.7.99 which was to be applicable till 31.3.2000. 9. In another policy guideline issued in the year 2000 a further increase of 10 percent with effect from 1.4.2000 to 31.3.2005 was brought into effect. The revision was effected from 1.7.99 which was to be applicable till 31.3.2000. 9. In another policy guideline issued in the year 2000 a further increase of 10 percent with effect from 1.4.2000 to 31.3.2005 was brought into effect. The revisions effected were not paid by many a vendors and therefore the demands were being issued for collecting the arrears, outstanding against the vendors who had continued to pay the license fee at the old rate. 10. It is also indicated by the respondents that 99 catering policy or 2000 policy became the subject matter of dispute in various High Courts. Several decisions came to be rendered by the High Courts. Some originating from Kerala. The cases finally travelled to the Supreme Court and the decision given by Honble Supreme Court dated 29th of March, 2005 in Civil Appeal No. 4897 of 2002 along with other analogous cases has been annexed with the counter affidavit. Honble Supreme Court after considering several orders opined that the revision brought about is not retrospective but were demands based on the earlier revision which was never put into effect due to various litigations and pendency of cases in several High Courts. Now that the Honble Supreme Court has finally decided that the Railways were free to enforce the outstanding dues from all such vendors who had not paid the license fees in terms of the provisional revision made from 1.7.99 to 31.3.2000 as well as the revision effected from 1.4.2000 to 31.3.2005 the respondents have moved in the matter. 11. There is yet another affidavit by what is known as Indian Railway Catering & Tourism Corporation Ltd. (IRCTC). Their stand is that the license fee being charged from the vendors is based on the policy decision taken by the Railways Board and enforced across the country. The earlier revision became subject matter of dispute and therefore the Railway Board had also intervened and passed a status quo order against enforcement. Only after the decision of Honble Supreme Court the Railway Board gave a go ahead for recovery of the revised fee since the revision effected per se was never interfered with by any Court. 12. Some of the counsel representing their clients in the light of above sub-mission of the Railway took yet another stand. Only after the decision of Honble Supreme Court the Railway Board gave a go ahead for recovery of the revised fee since the revision effected per se was never interfered with by any Court. 12. Some of the counsel representing their clients in the light of above sub-mission of the Railway took yet another stand. Their contention is that the policy by virtue of which the revision and the license fee was worked out does not take into consideration the ground reality in existence. In many a zones and stations across the country a uniform yard stick for revision has led its own problem. Categorization and clubbing of many stations as a unit has led to anomalous situation. Instances were pointed out to Court where a small station located in the district of Bhagalpur with not much in terms of volume of business have been equated with some of the bigger stations of that area. In absence of any correct study or verification of data available the demand and the revision requires a re-look. 13. Taking into consideration the terms and conditions incorporated in the license read with the policy decisions of revision as well as the decision rendered by Honble Supreme Court in the case of N.B. Krishna Kurup the submission made by the petitioners that the demand notice issued upon them is illegal and arbitrary seems to be misplaced. Their submission that the revision is being effected from a retrospective date does not seem to be true as the demands are not new revisions but the claim of arrears for earlier revision which was not paid. 14. The revision had already been made provisionally in the year 1999 and thereafter from 1.4.2000. Since the old revision could not be enforced through and through for the reasons indicated in the earlier part of the order it is only after the settlement and adjudication of the dispute by the Apex Court the Railway got a free hand to enforce the revision. It cannot be anybodies case that the revision has been effected or notified in the year 1995 but from a prior date. Challenge on the ground of retrospectivity therefore is fit to be rejected. 15. The other aspect however does require a re-look. It cannot be anybodies case that the revision has been effected or notified in the year 1995 but from a prior date. Challenge on the ground of retrospectivity therefore is fit to be rejected. 15. The other aspect however does require a re-look. Uniform application of the policy which provides for clubbing unequal with equals and creating liability upon persons who are not similarly situated may reflect irrationality and therefore arbitrary. If that is so then some of the facts and figures which have been produced on record by some of the petitioners require reconsideration. 16. The Court is informed that a new catering policy is in the offing and that will take care of a lot of issues urged in the present writ applications. I hope that the new catering policy is more rational and based on some scientific study in this regard based on some data and inputs collected by the respondents. The Court however is not much impressed on the issue of a new policy specially if it does not take care of the grievance of some of the petitioners which has been noticed in this order. In all these cases where the demands raised are not based on consideration of all the parameters which have gone into fixing the revision, they shall have the freedom to represent before the respondents for reconsideration. But in other cases where the issue is only for recovery of outstanding license fees which was being enforced on passing of the final order of Honble Supreme Court, the respondents have freedom to proceed. 17. All the writ applications stand disposed of with the observation as above.