WP(C)/4264/2008 of KSE LTD., IRINJALAKUDA Vs THE GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAYS & on 26 November 2025

J U D G M E N T

The petitioner availed the service of Railway for transporting de-oiled rice bran from Coimbatore to Kottayam. The tariff applicable to such transport is based on the nature of the goods being transported. The Railway classified the trainload under 110 instead of 120. After delivery, the Railway found out a mistake in the classification and demanded the petitioner to pay differential rate. Challenging the demand, the petitioner approached this Court.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner challenged the demand mainly relying upon Section 78 of the Railways Act which reads as follows: “78. Power to measure, weigh etc.- Notwithstanding anything contained in the railway receipt, the railway administration may before the delivery of the consignment have the right to-

a. re-measure, re-weigh or re-classify any consignment;

b. re-calculate the freight and other charges; and

c. correct any other error or collect any amount that may have been omitted to be charged.

W.P.(C) No.4264/2008

3. On going through the above provision, it can be concluded that the above provision gives only an enabling power for the Railway to measure the consignment before the delivery being effected and to recalculate the tariff. The present demand essentially arises out of the mistake committed by the Railway while applying classification of the goods/commodity concerned.

4. The question is whether the Railway can demand such differential tariff after delivery. The Railway refers to Section 83 of the Railways Act. The said provision in fact only refers to exercise of right of lien over the goods. That is one mode of recovery. The question is whether the Railway is having any power after the consignment is delivered to raise such demand. The consignment essentially arises out of contract. If there is a mistake arises out of the contract, one party can demand from other party. In that sense, the demand can only be understood as a demand from one of the parties. However, the question looms large is in what manner it can be enforced. Since that is not an issue before this Court, treating it only as a demand from the Railway, this writ petition can be disposed of.

W.P.(C) No.4264/2008

The petitioner is free to raise objections to the demand now made. If the petitioner wants to raise an objection, it shall be done within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Thereafter, the Railway shall pass appropriate orders within a further period of one month. As already adverted above, the mode of recovery is not being the subject matter of writ petition, that issue is left open. In such circumstances, the question whether the Railway can demand differential tariff without resorting for adjudication is a matter to be considered when the recovery is resisted. This writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE JUDGE smp