JUDGMENT : Anil Kumar Srivastava-II, J. All these writ petitions can be conveniently disposed of by this common order, as the issues raised in all these writ petitions are the same and the question needing determination, is also the same. 2. In exercise of the powers conferred under Section 28 of the Uttar Pradesh Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Government of Uttar Pradesh has framed the Uttar Pradesh(Sugarcane Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Rules, 1954(hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). 3. The petitioners are aggrieved by the notification dated 13.03.2008 issued by the State of Uttar Pradesh the respondent No. 1 herein, amending, inter alia, Rule 89 of the said Rules. They are, therefore, praying that by issuing a writ of certiorari, or a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari, the said notification be quashed to the extent it amended the Rule 89 of the said Rules. 4. Two of the petitioners are the weighment clerks as contemplated under Rule 38A of the said Rules and the remaining two are the associations of weighment clerks. 5. Under the said Rules, a weighment clerk employed by a occupier of a Sugarcane Mill is required to be licensed by the Collector of the concerned district. 6. Rule 89 provides that on receipt of an application for license, the Collector may issue a license in the prescribed form. It also provides that the Collector may, before granting a license, demand a security deposit in cash or in government securities for the due observance of the conditions of the license. 7. Rule 89, as it stood before the said notification dated 13.03.2008, provided for a demand of a security deposit, not exceeding Rs. 100/-. By the said notification, Rule 89 was amended by enhancing the amount of security deposit that may be demanded by the Collector, to Rs. 20,000/-. 8. The challenge given to the notification is on the ground that this enhancement in the security deposit is arbitrary, unreasonable, has been effected without application of mind, and thus, is violative of the constitutional provisions. 9. 20,000/-. 8. The challenge given to the notification is on the ground that this enhancement in the security deposit is arbitrary, unreasonable, has been effected without application of mind, and thus, is violative of the constitutional provisions. 9. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 points out and it is not in dispute that the validity of the said notification has already been upheld by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Panch Ram Maurya and others v. State of U.P. and others, [Writ C. No. 50183 of 2009, decided on 09.10.2009]. Thereafter, a number of decisions have been given by this Court, upholding the constitutionality and validity of the said notification. It is, therefore, not open for the petitioners to raise the same contentions again before us. In fact, this legal position is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 10. When these petitions were taken up for admission on 01.09.2008, this Court had passed an interim order stipulating, inter alia, that so far as the security deposit as per the rule as amended by the said notification dated 13.03.2008 is concerned, the petitioners would deposit Rs. 5,000/- towards it within one month from the date of the said order. It is not in dispute that the petitioners have complied with the requirement laid down in the aforesaid said interim order. 11. Since the challenge to the validity and legality of the notification in question has already failed, it is not possible to grant any relief to the petitioners. However, we would like to state that the Collector shall, in demanding security deposit, exercise his powers reasonably and would demand security deposit after taking into account the object and purpose of such demand and keeping in view the nature of work performed by weighment clerks and the resources available to them. Rs. 20,000/- is the highest possible demand that can be made, and the Collector is not expected to demand that much deposit merely because the rule enhances the maximum amount payable as security deposit. 12. The prayer to quash the notification and the prayer to declare the same as unconstitutional and ultra vires, is rejected, and the petitions are dismissed with the above observations.