IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2974 of 2008 RAJENDRA DUBEY Versus THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS with CWJC No.3027 of 2008 AKHILESH KUMAR MISHRA Versus THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS ----------- 3 16.4.2010 Both the writ applications are heard and disposed of by a common order. The unreasonableness of the demand made by the respondent Railway authority upon the two petitioners to part with 99% of the commission received from BSNL for running telephone booths at railway station concerned has already been commented upon in the interim order dated 19.3.2008. The Court is not willing to add anything further to the observation already made in this regard. In addition to that yet another development has been brought to the notice of this Court by learned counsel representing the respondents which is a decision rendered by the Delhi High Court in a set of batch cases which is case of C.P. Mittal vrs. Union of India & Ors along with analogous cases. The decision in question is dated 3rd September, 2007 where a similar kind of demand made by the respondents was found to be arbitrary and excessive. All those writ applications stood allowed but the matter was relegated back to the respondents to take a fresh view on the issue. The basic parameter and the validity of the policy have already been commented upon by the Delhi High Court in this regard. - 2 - In that view of the matter this Court is not willing to go into all these aspects which have been urged at the bar with the object of saving public time. Both the writ applications are allowed and the matters are relegated back to the respondent authority for taking into consideration the observation of this Court in the order dated 19.3.2008 read with the decision of the Delhi High Court and they will take a fresh view in the matter and communicate their decision to the petitioners. Till the decision is made let the petitioners be not disturbed. RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi,J.)