C§:\m’“/'/ U}; ILHE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Appeal No.2 %’@ /2008 { WRIT‘APPEAL UNDER SECTION 2 OF THE CHHTTlsGARH HIGH COURT (APPEAL TO DIVISION BENCH) ACT 2006} APPELLANT M/s Shree Nakoda lspat Ltd., Near railway crossing Mowa Raipur —492007 Through Manager Earlier- (Shri Rajendra Tiwari S/o Shri B.N. Tiwari Aged about 32 years, Raipur) At present— Shri Haranadh Peri, S/o Late Narayana Murty Peri Aged about 43 years, Raipur(C.G) Versus B_E_SPONDENTS */ {Nwvn cQe wk 4) The Sr. Divisional Commercial Manager S.E.C Railway, District- Bilaspur 5) Goods Clerk/Station Master- Uslapur, Dist— Bilaspur (C.G) 1) Union of Through Secretary , T ‘\ Ministry of ’Raiiways \ New Delhi. ‘ ‘ i r4 2) General Manager, S.E.C Railway, i, b Headquarters Office, Bilaspur (C.G) i The Chief Commercial Manager S.E.C. 'Raiiway Bilaspur (CG) Wm@ ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER PASSED BY A SINGLE JUDGE OF ‘THIS HON’BLE COURT HON’BLE THEN CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI S.R.NAYAK IN WRIT PETITION NO- DISMISSING THE ,WRJT PETITION V ALTERNATIVE REMEDY. EN 640/2006 ON DATED 7/2/2006 ON AVAILABLE OF THE X3 A »,4. W5 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Vs Respondenfs Union of India & ofhers PresenT: Mr. H.S. Ahluwulia, Advoca‘te for ‘rhe appellant Mr. Ghanshynm Pa‘rel, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Abhishek Sinha, Standing Counsel for fhe respondenf—Rdilways. ORAL JUDGMENT (Passed on 9*“ Apr-u, 2010) /\ . Quddusi, J: 1. Heard.» 2. This wri‘r appeal has been filed agains‘r The impugned order dafed 7.2.2006 passed in W.P. No.640/06 whereby fhe learned Single Judge has declined To enfer'rain 'rhe wri'r pe‘rifion and dismissed fhe same. 3. The pe'rifioner/wri'r appellan‘l’ had filed fhe wri'r pe'l'ifion for quashmen'r of 'rhe impugned order da'l'ed 13.7.2005 demanding overloading puni'rive charges in respecf of, fhe goods for 'rhe mon'rh of May, 2005 To 'rhe 'rune of Rs.3,03,450/—. 4.Wri1“ pe‘lifion was dismissed on The ground ThaT The peTiTioner l wriT appellanT could make complainT before The Railway Claims Tribunal under SecTion 36 of The Railways AcT, 1989. 5. Submission of The peTiTio‘ner/wrif appellanT is ThaT The Railway Claims Tribunal has no jurisdicTion To enTerTain such claim. Reliance is placed on The judgmenT in The maTTer of Upper Doab Sugar Mills LTd.‘ Vs. 5hahdara Iv? v. x Appellan'r/ Pe'ri'rioner' 2 Q @ (Delhi) Saharanpur Ligh‘l' Railway Co. L'rd. repor’l’ed 'm AIR 1963 SC 217. 6. We have been informed by The learned counsel for ‘rhev wri? appellant fha'r wrif pe-Hfions of similar nafure were enfer‘l’ained by The learned Single Judge and some of which are W.P. No.677/06, 6142/05 & 6099/05. 7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of The respondenT- Railways does noT dispuTe The above facT. 8. Therefore, we are of The opinion ThaT since The above menTioned wriT peTiTjons have been enTerTained by The learned Single Judge, W.P. No.640/O‘, which is subjecT maTTer of The insTanT wriT appeal, should also be decided on meriTs along wiTh oTher similar wriT peTiTions. 9. In view of above, we seT aside The impugned order daTedj 7.2.2006 passed by The learned Single Judge and direcT ThaT W.P. No.640/O5qshall be resTored To iTs original number and shall be lisTed along wiTh oTher similar wriT ‘ peTiTions for adjudicaTion. 10. The wriT appeal is allowed To The above exTenT. No order as - .4/ To cosTs. 1wr w'es. I ea; i V Sd/- QM .7 Prashant Kumar Mlshl‘a . y I.M.&uddusi ll Judge .g ls 7,77 l i. ‘i-i‘iudge Roshan er sir,