Judgment :- The petitioner is an association registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act. The members of the association are handling the clearing and forwarding of the goods from Katpadi Goodshed to the neighbouring districts like Tiruvannamalai, Dharmapuri, Krishnagiri and Thiruvallur. 2. The petitioner has questioned the impugned order, dated 17.8.2012 of the Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, Southern Railway, to levy penal Demurrage charges and higher Wharfage charges at four times than the present rates at Tambaram, Katpadi and Mundiambakkam. The reason as given in the impugned order is that the inward rakes arriving at the aforesaid places have been regularly suffering long detention hours and hence the Railway Board has issued circular referred to in the impugned order to levy the penal demurrage charges and higher Wharfage charges. 3. While admitting the writ petition on 17.9.2012, this Court granted an order of interim stay for a period of two weeks on the ground that the respondents failed to file counter affidavit though the matter was listed on two occasions. 4. The respondents have filed counter affidavit seeking to dismiss the writ petition. The respondents have also filed a petition to vacate the order of interim stay granted by this Court. 5. Heard both sides. 6. This Court has already considered the similar issue and taking note of the earlier judgment passed by this Court in W.P.Nos. 25441, 25493 and 25537 of 2011, dated 23.01.2012, dismissed the writ petition, by an order dated 4.9.2012 in W.P.No.22936 of 2012, on the following ground: "8 In view of the fact that the respondents have very clearly stated that demurrage charges will be collected only from the consignee, petitioners will in no way be affected or prejudiced by imposition of demurrage charges if the goods are kept beyond 48 hours. In view of the above clarification given by the respondents, no further order is necessary in the writ petitions. The writ petitions are accordingly disposed of as not sustainable......." 7. In view of the aforesaid order passed by this Court, this writ petition also deserves to be dismissed. 8. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order was passed in a discriminatory manner, only to those three places, and particularly, the petitioner is affected due to the increased charges at Katpadi. 9. In view of the aforesaid order passed by this Court, this writ petition also deserves to be dismissed. 8. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order was passed in a discriminatory manner, only to those three places, and particularly, the petitioner is affected due to the increased charges at Katpadi. 9. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Southern Railway has produced a circular No.TC-1/2005/201/2pT.B, dated 8.3.2007 of the Railway Board. Clause 6 of the circular is relevant to this case and the same is extracted hereunder: "6 Levy of Higher Wharfage Charges In cases of excessive congestion or regularity of excessive congestion at any terminal, CCM/DRM can notify higher Wharfage charges upto six times the prevailing rates applicable for the first 24 hours. Higher Wharfage Charge should be implemented only after giving a due notice of 48 hours and wide publicity, and should be applicable only for the notified period." 10. It is further stated that the impugned order will be in operation only for a period of three months. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner has stated, at this juncture, that there is no mention about the operation of the order for a period of three months. 12. The learned counsel for the respondents, on instruction, asserted that the impugned order will be in operation only for a period of three months. It is further stated that the order was passed only to decongest the terminal. 13. In view of the orders passed by this Court in similar writ petitions cited supra, and in view of the statement made by the learned counsel for the respondents that the impugned order will be in operation for a period of three months only, so as to decongest the terminal, I am inclined to dismiss the writ petition and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Interim stay granted by this Court on 17.9.2012 in M.P.No.2 of 2012 stands vacated. Consequently, M.P.No.2 of 2012 is dismissed. M.P.No.3 of 2012 is allowed.