JUDGMENT : Devan Ramachandran, J. The petitioner claims the right to vend and sell 'light refreshments' in a stall allotted to him by the first respondent Devaswom Board for the period from 12th November, 2016 to 11th November, 2017 under the sanction of Exhibit P1 notification. 2. As per the notification, the petitioner has been granted the right to sell light refreshments like soft drinks, tea, coffee, glucose, chips, fruits, juice and packaged 'bakery items' like vada, burfey, cutlet, along with the right to use electrical energy for the purpose of preparation of such items. These facts are uncontested and admitted by both sides. The controversy arose when, under the umbra of such right granted to the petitioner, he attempted to sell vegetable Pulavu, Chappathi with curry, Paratha with curry and such items that were packed as ready-to-eat food. The petitioner attempted to sell these articles ostensibly as being bakery items sold in packets. It is alleged by the petitioner that the competent authorities of the Board have, however, denied permission to vend or sell these articles on the ground that they are not covered by the notification. 3. The primary contention of the petitioner is that the articles that he now attempts to sell, namely, Vegetable Pulavu, Chappathi with curry, Paratha with curry, etc. are ready to eat and sold in packets and that, therefore, they are essentially in the same nature of packed 'bakery items' allowed to be sold by the petitioner as per the notification. On this basis, the petitioner has sought a declaration that the attempt of the competent authorities of the Board in stopping sale of such articles by him is violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 4. We have heard Mr.K.Ramakumar, the learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri.Ramaprasad Unni, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Sri. V. Krishna Menon, the learned Standing Counsel for the Travancore Devaswom Board. 5. We note that the notification which grants the petitioner the right to vend is categoric that what has been permitted is only the right to vend and sell light refreshments. A light refreshment in common parlance is something such as food and drink that refreshes and light refreshments are, at the best, a snack or a light meal or a drink. In contra-distinction to this is the concept of full meal or an entree which includes the main course. A light refreshment in common parlance is something such as food and drink that refreshes and light refreshments are, at the best, a snack or a light meal or a drink. In contra-distinction to this is the concept of full meal or an entree which includes the main course. A light refreshment, conceding to all its semantic variations could never elevate to the role of a main meal or even an entree. The terms of the notification granting the right to vend are ineluctable that the petitioner can only vend light refreshments, be it 'bakery items' or otherwise. In effect, the articles that can qualify itself to be a light refreshment alone can be allowed to be sold in the stall and the attempt of the petitioner in selling food articles which are obviously main meal or complete meal is not envisioned by the notification. It is common knowledge that packed bakery articles are those which have a longer shelf life and can be consumed as refreshments rather than as a meal. Main meal, on the other hand, whether packed or otherwise, has a much lower shelf life and is intended to be consumed quickly after packing. It is inescapable that the grant under the notification was the right to sell only such packaged articles which are refreshments, further qualified to be light, and not a full meal whether packed or otherwise. 6. It is, therefore, completely within the power of the competent authority of the Board to refuse the right to the petitioner to vend articles that he has now attempted to sell ostensibly as light refreshments, but when obviously they are not so but are full meal in itself. We cannot allow the petitioner any right or privilege more than what is specifically granted under Exhibit P1 notification, which is only to vend light refreshments and not main courses or full meal, whatever be the manner in which it is presented. 7. We cannot allow the petitioner any right or privilege more than what is specifically granted under Exhibit P1 notification, which is only to vend light refreshments and not main courses or full meal, whatever be the manner in which it is presented. 7. We are firm in our opinion for the reason that last year a similar issue had been raised before this Court wherein the person who had obtained similar grant for running a light refreshment stall had approached this Court by filing W.P.(C)No.36225/2015, claiming right to sell articles like 'Aloo Paratha, Aloo Chappathi, Aloo Poori, Pavu Bun, Vegetable Paratha Roll, Vegetable Poori Roll, Paneer Paratha Roll, Masala Idly, Paneer Idly, Aloo Dosa, Aloo Dosa Roll, Paneer Chappathi Roll, Vegetable Pulavu etc.' The notification under which such right to vend was given contained clauses verbissima ipsa the clauses in Exhibit P1 notification in this writ petition. This Court, by judgment dated 21.12.2015, declared that 'a light refreshment stall is different from a hotel or restaurant and that the food stuffs referred to by the petitioners therein are not light food but are main meal'. The writ petitions were thus dismissed, which were then appealed against in W.A.No.2781/2015 and a connected case. The learned Division Bench also took the same view and dismissed the appeals. It appears that the petitioners then carried the matter to the Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing an SLP, but it was subsequently withdrawn. Review of the judgments in appeals were thereafter attempted by the petitioners therein before this Court, which were also dismissed, thus, concluding the issue that the articles mentioned in that writ petitions were not merely light refreshments but main meal. The facts of this case are similar, if not identical, to that in the writ petitions mentioned above. We are aware that the petitioners in these two cases are different but we are equally aware that the petitioner in this writ petition is the son of the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.36225/2015. It would not, therefore, be completely unjustified for us to believe that the petitioner was aware of the directions issued by this Court in the writ petition referred to above and in the appeals and the review petitions, since they were all filed by his father. Not that, we hold this against the petitioner, but the earlier judgments would obviously militate against his claim in this writ petition. Not that, we hold this against the petitioner, but the earlier judgments would obviously militate against his claim in this writ petition. In such circumstances, we see no reason to grant any relief to the petitioner. Therefore, the writ petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed.