JUDGMENT M.R. Hariharan Nair, J.
1. Heard both sides. Challenge is with regard to Ext.P4 and similar other demand note issued to the petitioners demanding additional security deposit for running telephone booth as franchisees. It was pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that new Rules have come into vogue and that the amount mentioned in Ext. P4 has no relevance now. The Standing Counsel for the respondents also submits that the payment that can be demanded is under the new guidelines. In the circumstances, leaving it open to the respondent to make appropriate demand under existing rooms this original petition is closed and it is made clear that no amount need be paid under Ext.P4.