WP(C)/4899/2025 of M/S SATISH PRASAD AND ANR Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ANR on 12 May 2026

ORDER

Date : 13.05.2026

Heard Mr. D. Rathi, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners and Mr. K. Gogoi, the learned CGC, appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

2. The Petitioners herein are aggrieved by the imposition of penal demurrage charges to the tune of Rs.14,26,856/- which the Petitioners had to pay and further terminal charges to the tune of Rs.1,06,688/-.

3. It is the specific case of the Petitioners that the said amounts which have been charged upon the Petitioners could not have been done so as per law. The Petitioners therefore have sought for appropriate directions for the refund of the said amounts which the Petitioners were compelled to make payment.

4. Mr. K. Gogoi, the learned CGC submitted that this Court may not like to entertain the instant writ petition taking into account that the Petitioners ought to have approached the Railway Claims Tribunal inasmuch as the issue which is being sought to be raised in the instant proceedings comes within the ambit of Section 36(c) of the Railways Act, 1989.

5. In that regard, the learned CGC has referred to a judgment of the learned Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of M/S Sadguru Engineers and Allied Services Private Limited and Another Vs. Union of India and 4 Others reported in 2025:GAU- AS:1001. The learned CGC submitted that the issue which is involved in the present proceedings is squarely covered by the observations made by the learned Coordinate Bench of this Court at Paragraph Nos. 27, 28, 29 and 30 of the said judgment. The said paragraphs are reproduced herein below: “27. Coming back to the remedy available under the law, it is to be taken note that by the Act of Parliament, the Railway Tribunals Act, 1987 and the Railways Act, 1989 have been enacted providing a remedy for making complaints against the Railway Administration which may be made before the Railway Claims Tribunal.

28. As noted above, the respondents authorities has failed to show that a Penal/Higher Demurrage Charge has been demanded after wide publicity and notice of 48 hours and the grievance is levying of charge which is 6th times of the normal demurrage charge which according to the petitioner is arbitrary, in my view would fall under Section 36(c) of the Railways Act, 1989 for which a complaint may be made to the Tribunal under the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987.

29. In the considered view of this Court, the grievance raised of not adhering to the Railway Circular dated 22/23.10.2008 of not providing 48 hours notice and after wide publication and also on the ground of Covid-19 situation at the relevant point of time, when the curfew was imposed, the same would be within the contours of the provisions of Section 36(c) of the Railways Act, 1989, within the jurisdiction of the Railway Claims

Tribunal. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the view that the petitioners have the remedy available under the law for their grievances.

30. In view of the foregoing discussions, in my considered view it would be appropriate that the petitioners approach the remedy available under the law. Accordingly, it is provided that the writ petitioners may approach the available remedy as per the provisions of Railway Claims Tribunal, 1987, and Railways Act, 1989. Consequently, without interfering with the impugned Demurrage Charge bill and the impugned Penal Demurrage Charge dated 22.11.2021 issued by the Divisional Railway Manager(C) Lumding, whereby, the petitioners have been directed to pay of Rs. 5,15,970/-(Rupees Five Lakh Fifteen Thousand Nine Hundred Seventy) only as Penal Demurrage Charge, the writ petition is disposed of providing a liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum.”

6. This Court has duly perused the judgment passed by the learned Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of M/S Sadguru Engineers and Allied Service Private Limited (supra). Taking into account that the said judgment has been rendered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court, judicial discipline demands that this Court follows the ratio laid down therein. Apart from that, the observations made by the learned Coordinate Bench appears to be in consonance with the provisions of the Railways Act, 1989 as well as the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987.

7. Considering the above, this Court is not inclined to entertain the instant writ petition for which the writ petition stands dismissed.

8. Before parting with the records, this Court observes that the dismissal of the instant writ petition shall not preclude the Petitioners to approach the Railway Claims Tribunal, if so advised.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant