WP(C) 6518/2003 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY Heard Mr. M. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Goswami, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. The petitioner, which is a HUF, by the present petition has prayed for a direction to the respondent railway authorities to refund the freight to the ex tent of 15% of the total freight paid during the months from January 2002 to Mar ch 2002 and from April 2003 to June 2003, contending inter alia that on the basi s of the promise made by the respondent railway vide circular issued in the mont h of August, 2001 promising levy of concessional rate of freight, the petitioner during the months from January 2002 to March 2002 and again from April 2003 to June 2003 carried bamboos in 6(six) and 4(four) rakes, totaling 10(ten) rakes, b y paying the 100% freight. According to the petitioner, though he is entitled to refund to the extent of 15% of such freight, the same has not been refunded des pite filing of two presentations, one dated 03.06.2002 and another dated 25.06.2 003, claiming the same. It is also the case of the petitioner that two other fir ms, namely, M/s Hill Trade Agency Ltd. and M/s Kalpataru Ltd., who were carrying the bamboo during the relevant point of time though were given 6% concession in the freight, nothing has been given to the petitioner. The petitioner, therefor e, has filed the present petition claiming relief, as noticed above. Mr. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioner referring to the averment s made in the writ petition as well as the annexures appended thereto and also t he averments made in the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondents submit s that as the respondent railway authority promised to allow the parties to carr y certain goods, which includes bamboo, on concessional rate of freight, they ar e bound to refund at least 15% of the freight paid by the petitioner for carryin g bamboos during the aforesaid period of time. It has also been submitted that t he respondent railway has in fact granted the freight concession to 2(two) other firms named above to the extent of 6%. Mr. Bhuyan further submits that it is ev ident from the statements made in the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respo ndents that the petitioner’s case is under consideration and final order is yet to be passed. Mr. Goswami, learned counsel appearing for the respondent railways, on t he other hand, submits that the petitioner is not entitled to any concessional r ate of freight and as such the same has not been given. Mr. Goswami also submits that the petitioner filed 2(two) representations dated 03.06.2002 and 25.06.200 3 and it appears from the averments made in the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondents that the claim of the petitioner is still under consideration. Though this Court vide order dated 11.08.2011 directed the learned stand ing counsel Railway to produce the relevant records with a view to scrutinize as to how the claim of the petitioner has been dealt with, Mr. Goswami, learned st anding counsel submits that the entire records is not made available to him, exc ept certain notifications issued by the Railway Administration pursuant to Secti on 32 of the Railways Act, 1989. It has also been submitted that the documents m ade available to him do not indicate consideration of the petitioner’s case. As noticed above, the petitioner claiming the concessional rate of freig ht and consequently the refund, has filed two representations dated 03.06.2002 a nd 25.06.2003. The Railway Administration in the affidavit-in-opposition filed h as admitted that the proposal of the petitioner is still under consideration. Th e petitioner also claims in the writ petition that he has been discriminated aga inst as the freight paid by two other firms to the extent of 6% was refunded but no order has been passed in respect of the petitioner’s claim. Since the petitioner’s claim is still under consideration by the Railway Administration, as is evident from the averments made by the respondents in the affidavit-in-opposition filed, the present writ petition is disposed of directi ng the Chief Commercial Manager (Rates), North East Frontier Railway, to conside r the aforesaid representations filed by the petitioner and to pass a speaking o rder keeping in view the claim of the petitioner as well as its contention that two other similarly placed persons were given the benefit of the concessional ra te of freight. The said exercise is directed to be completed within a period of 1(one) month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order passed today to be produced by the petitioner before the Chief Commercial Manager (Rate s), North East Frontier Railway. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.