IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No 5977 of 2009 M/S Leonard Exports, a partnership firm having its office at Vasundhara Building, 2/7, Sarat Bose Road, 06th Floor, Space 5, Kolkata – 700 020 Through its partner Sri Achintya Kumar Mondal, son of Sri Ravindra Nath Mondal, resident of Bajepratap pur, Katwa Road, P S : Bardhwan, Dist : Bardhwan (West Bengal) - Petitioner Versus 1 The Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Railway, Government of India, New Delhi 2 The General Manager, East Central Railway, Hajipur 3 The Divisional Railway Manager, Samastipur Division, East Central Railway, Samastipur 4 The Chief Commercial Manager, East Central Railway, Dighi Khurd, B – Block, Hajipur 5 The Chief Commercial Manager (Refunds), East Central Railway, Hajipur 6 The General Manager, South Eastern Railway, Garden Reach, Kolkata – 700 043 7 The Divisional Railway Manager, Ranchi Division, Ranchi - Respondents *** For the petitioner : M/s Gautam Kejriwal & Gopal Prasad Gupta, Advocates For the Railways : Mr Shabbir Ahmad, Advocate *** 2 13.05.2009 Railways are represented. The petitioner is an exporter of dry slag. Dry slag available from the Lafarge India Private Limited Cement Plant at Jamshedpur is loaded on railway wagons for export to Nepal. Due documentation was done but at the destination station Raxaul in India, Railway imposed a penalty for alleged overloading of wagon. Petitioner demanded as to where weighment was done, where, if any, offloading of excess slag was done and further requested at the destination that the goods may be reweighed. It is asserted that nothing was disclosed or done in this regard and punitive charges levied and realised. Petitioner 2 states that he has made several representations including seeking information with regard to the aforesaid but Railways have not responded in any manner. Thus, it is submitted that the punitive freight overcharges levied and collected is against the provisions of the Railways Act and is otherwise arbitrary. In my view, the petitioner must first raise these issues before the Railways as it concerns facts which are yet to be ascertained. Annexure-4 dated 17.07.2007 is petitioner’s representation before the Chief Commercial Manager (Refund Goods), East Central Railways, Hajipur in this regard. In my view, the petitioner should file a fresh protest –cum- representation petition before the said authority who would be bound to disclose the information so sought for and then decide the claim of the petitioner with regard to refund. Such a decision must be taken by a speaking order duly communicated to the petitioner. On such a representation being filed within one month, Railways would disclose all the information in detail sought for and then on a further representation being filed on basis of the information so disclosed, Railways would dispose of the claim and communicate the same to the petitioner. This disposes of the writ application. Petitioner would have his remedies as against the final orders that are passed. M.E.H./ (Navaniti Prasad Singh)