THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI NISAR AHMAD KAKRU and THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL No. 49 OF 2010 Dated: 01-04-2010 Between: M/s. Taj Baba Forwarding Agencies, Pezzonipet, Vijayawada, rep., by its Partner ... APPELLANT AND The Railways Board, Railway Bhavan, New Delhi, rep., by its Chairman and four others ... RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI NISAR AHMAD KAKRU and THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL No. 49 OF 2010 JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Shri Nisar Ahmad Kakru) En-route re-weighment of the mangoes at Jhansi by the Railway Board’s Vigilance Agency, booked by the writ petitioner – appellant herein, at Nuzvid Railway Station with the Railways in 20 NMG wagons on 16-04-1997, resulted in a demand notice by the Railways for an amount of Rs.16,21,952/- because the weight of mangoes was more than the recorded weight. The demand notice so issued was responded by the appellant by a part payment of Rs.7,00,000/- but instead of depositing the outstanding, he chose to question the demand notice itself by medium of Writ Petition No. 9297 of 1997 and the WPMP filed along, begot an interim stay of the impugned order subject to payment of Rs.3,00,000/- which was deposited and the writ petition was disposed of with a direction requiring the appellant to approach the Railways for settlement of the dispute, with a further direction to the latter to adjudicate upon afresh. The judgment did not satisfy the appellant, consequently, Writ Appeal No. 1795 of 1998, seeking refund of Rs.3,00,000/- paid by him in compliance with the direction of the writ Court, but the judgment did not witness any alteration. However, the adjudicator was directed to dispose of the proceedings within eight weeks who passed final order on 04-05-2000, but of no avail to the appellant, resultantly, Writ Petition No. 1802 of 2001, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 10-07- 2009. Hence, this writ appeal, wherein main thrust is laid on alleged violation of procedure of re-weighment conducted at Jhansi, with the use of weighment equipment after expiry of the license, but in our opinion, contention has lost significance because of the reason that the goods were re-weighed at Nayaazadpur, New Delhi, also that too at the request of the appellant, in the presence of his agents who accepted the difference between the weight recorded at Nuzvid and weight found at the time of delivery to be correct. Apart from that, the finding returned by the adjudicator is based on the record duly signed by the officers of the different branches of the Railway Department, delivery books and other material. More so, no material is brought to our notice which could persuade us to upset the finding of fact. As a matter of fact, the record produced before us by Railways on asking of the Court supports the view taken by the adjudicator. Reliance by learned counsel for the appellant on the judgment in Uttamrao Shivdas Jankar Vs. Ranjitsinh Vijaysinh Mohite Patil[1], is of no help to him, for, we find no error of fact touching the merit of the decision vis-à-vis the decision making process in the case on hand. Situated thus, interference is declined. Writ appeal is dismissed with liberty to the appellant to invoke the remedy in accordance with law against the finding of fact, if any. Record has been returned to the learned Standing Counsel for the Railways in the open Court. SANJAY KUMAR, J NISAR AHMAD KAKRU, CJ 01-04-2010 K. Shyleshi [1] 2009-JT-9-111