( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 10th August, 2007 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition of the appellant on the ground that the contentions raised by the appellant/writ petitioner are devoid of merit. ( 2 ) BY filing the aforesaid writ petition, the petitioner had challenged the conditions imposed by the Railways as a part of the licence issued to him. The aforesaid conditions stated to have been imposed by the Railways require each agent to wear a yellow armband with letters RTSA in red colour written thereon. ( 3 ) THE appellant herein is a Railway Travellers' Service Agent and has been granted a licence. A scheme was finalized by the Supreme Court wherein in addition to other conditions, it is stipulated that the Railway Traveller's service Agent shall carry an identity card with a photograph countersigned by the competent authority for purchase of tickets and for making reservation. ( 4 ) ANOTHER condition is that no canvassing for booking and reservation by the agent or any person on his behalf shall be permitted within the railway premises as stated in clause (xii) of the said scheme. ( 5 ) RELYING on the said conditions, the appellant has stated before us that there is no necessity for providing a double identification by making it a condition for the agents to wear an armband. It is also submitted before us that if the aforesaid armband is worn by the agents, that will amount to canvassing, which is contrary to the other condition. Similar arguments were also raised before the Learned Single Judge who has dealt with all the aforesaid contentions and rejected the same stating that the apprehension of the appellant was entirely mis-placed and incorrect. ( 6 ) WE have also perused the relevant records placed before us and considered the contentions raised. On going through the same, we find that a similar petition filed by the Railway Traveller's Service Agent Association registered as WP (C)No. 1557/2000, was disposed of by this Court on 22nd November, 2004 On going through the said judgment, we find that the said contention was dealt with by the learned Single Judge and findings were recorded in that regard. It was recorded in the said order :- "the second circular dated 06. 03. It was recorded in the said order :- "the second circular dated 06. 03. 1998 provides that the employees of the registered agents to wear yellow armed bands. The arm band should bear the letters RSTA in red colour. The person not wearing the bands are not to be entertained by the Reservation Clerk and such employees are also to display their valid identity cards on their chest pockets. Here again there is no serious challenge made by the learned counsel for the petitioner since it is obvious that the purpose of the circular is to identify the agents and to prevent malpractice. " ( 7 ) A bare perusal of the aforesaid order makes it crystal clear that the purpose of prescribing arm bands is to identify the agents and to prevent any malpractice. The said findings are now final and binding and the same equally apply to the appellant herein who is also a Railway Traveller's Service Agent, who had earlier filed a writ petition through their Association. ( 8 ) THE purpose behind the aforesaid condition imposed by the respondent is loud and clear. Said prescription is made in order to prevent malpractice so that the agent is easily identified even from a distance and is not identified to be an ordinary passenger. We do not find any reason as to why the appellant should be aggrieved if an additional identification mark is prescribed by the competent authority as there is scope for adopting malpractice by an unidentified person. Since the aforesaid condition has been prescribed by the respondent for facilitating easy identification, we find no reason to accept the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. ( 9 ) THE contention that wearing of such armband would amount to canvassing, which is prohibited is also found without merit in view of the fact that wearing of armband is in the nature of physical identification and would not in any manner amount to canvassing by the agents, which is a different concept altogether. ( 10 ) IN that view of the matter, we find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The appeal has no merit and is dismissed.