Rajan Roy, J. – The petitioners bus was engaged by the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as the “U.P.S.R.T.C.”) as per an earlier scheme under which private vehicles were engaged for Public Transport and in pursuance thereof an agreement was entered between the petitioners and the U.P.S.R.T.C. on 8.11.2010. An Administrative Fee was deducted from the money payable to the bus owners. Rate of such fee, which was to be fixed by U.P.S.R.T.C., was in fact fixed at Rs. 4.64 per Km. Subsequently a new scheme was launched by the respondents on 20.10.2011. After coming into force of the new scheme, the petitioners moved an application for cancellation of the earlier agreement, which was accepted by the respondents and the said agreement was cancelled on 27.3.2012. Subsequently, on 4.4.2012 a fresh agreement was entered between the petitioner and the U.P.S.R.T.C. under the new scheme dated 20.10.2011. As per Clause 12.3 of the agreement dated 4.4.2012 the Administrative Fee as determined by U.P.S.R.T.C. and acceptable to the petitioner would be deducted from the income per Km. and the amount payable to the bus owner shall be determined accordingly. Undisputedly the said Administrative Fee under the new scheme was determined at Rs. 3.75 per Km. 2. However, by means of the impugned order dated 6.10.2012 the enhanced Administrative Fee @ Rs. 4.64 per Km. was ordered to be deducted on the ground that some of the vehicles engaged under the new scheme were being plied under the earlier scheme at the aforesaid rate. 3. During the pendency of the writ petition another order dated 27.2.2013 has been passed whereby the Administrative Fee has been fixed at Rs. 3.95 per Km. even under the new scheme. 4. The grievance of the petitioners is that once a fresh agreement had been entered on 4.4.2012, then they were not liable to pay Administrative Fee @ 4.64 per Km., but, only Rs. 3.75 per Km. could be deducted from the amount payable to the petitioners, therefore, the impugned order dated 6.10.2012 is not sustainable. 5. The learned Counsel appearing for the U.P.S.R.T.C, on the other hand submits that as the petitioners had been offered the vehicle under the earlier agreement under which the Administrative Fee was chargeable @ Rs. 4.64 per Km., therefore, the petitioners were not entitled to deduction of Administrative Fee @ Rs. 5. The learned Counsel appearing for the U.P.S.R.T.C, on the other hand submits that as the petitioners had been offered the vehicle under the earlier agreement under which the Administrative Fee was chargeable @ Rs. 4.64 per Km., therefore, the petitioners were not entitled to deduction of Administrative Fee @ Rs. 3.75 per Km., which was applicable only under the new scheme and the fresh agreements entered subsequently. He further submits that under the new scheme the existing operators were not entitled for the aforesaid benefits and the same was available only to the new operators. He further submits that under Clause 12.3 of the contract, it was for the U.P.S.R.T.C. to fix the rate at which Administrative Fee was chargeable. 6. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the U.P.S.R.T.C. accepted the request of the petitioners for cancellation of the agreement under the old scheme and entered into a fresh agreement with the petitioners of its own volition under the new scheme. The Administrative Fee as determined by the U.P.S.R.T.C. under the new scheme was Rs. 3.75 per Km. Therefore, it is not open for the U.P.S.R.T.C. to take the plea that as the petitioners had offered the bus under the earlier scheme @ Rs. 4.64 per Km. they are liable to pay the Administrative Fee @ Rs. 4.64 per Km. under the new scheme also. Moreover we also notice that the basis for drawing a distinction between the owners, who had offered their buses under the earlier scheme also and those who had offered their buses under the new scheme, for the purposes of deduction of the Administrative Fee, is not at all tenable. It does not appeal to reason that the buses plying at the same point of time should be subjected to different Administrative Fee merely on the ground that some were engaged under the old scheme also while others were engaged under the new scheme. There appears to be no rational basis for such distinction nor does it have any nexus with the object sought to be achieved. Moreover, neither the agreement nor the scheme mentions the rate of Administrative Fee. It is left open to be determined separately by the U.P.S.R.T.C. and it has to be such as is acceptable to the bus owner. There appears to be no rational basis for such distinction nor does it have any nexus with the object sought to be achieved. Moreover, neither the agreement nor the scheme mentions the rate of Administrative Fee. It is left open to be determined separately by the U.P.S.R.T.C. and it has to be such as is acceptable to the bus owner. Reference may be made in this regard to Clause 12.3 of the agreement dated 4.4.2012 clearly the enhanced Administrative Fee @ 4.64 per Km. was not acceptable to the petitioners. All the buses are plying at the same time and it appears highly unjustified that merely, on the ground, that some had been engaged under the earlier scheme should pay a higher Administrative Fee vis-a-vis those who had been subsequently engaged. This cannot be a valid basis for classification for the purposes of deduction of Administrative fee. Administrative fee has to be uniform and such classification is clearly discriminatory and hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 7. In view of the above discussion the impugned order dated 6.10.2012 is hereby quashed. The writ petition is allowed. The respondents can only charge the Administrative Fee @ 3.75 per Kms. under the new scheme, till such time it was operative and would be eligible to charge @ Rs. 3.95 pursuant to the order dated 27.2.2013. Petition Allowed. ___________