IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7016 of 2010 1. M/S S.K. Bidi Company, Pipradih, At & P.O. Jhajha, Distt.- Jamui, Town Jhajha Through Its Proprietor Sanjay Keshri Versus 1. The Union of India Through The Secretary Of The Ministry Of Railways, Railway Board, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi 2. The Director, Railway Traffic Commercial, Railway Board, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi 3. The Financial Commissioner Railways, Railway Board, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi --------------------- For the petitioner :- Mr. R.S. Ganguly, Advocate For the respondents:- Mr. D.K. Sinha, Sr. Advocate Mr. Anil Singh, Advocate ********** 2 19.09.2011 Heard learned counsel for the parties. The writ petition has been filed questioning the rate of demurrage/wharfage charges on goods transported by the petitioner through the respondent-Railways as set out in the Circular No. 69of 2009 dated 09.12.2009. It is the case of the petitioner that even while the petitioner or the consignee cannot be held responsible for any delay in taking possession of goods transported through the Railways, they are subjected to such charges which are of substantial character. The grounds on which the petitioner seeks to question the rate of demurrage/wharfage charges has been discussed in paragraph 6 of the writ petition. Mr. Ravi Shanker Ganguli, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner while reiterating the grounds further submits that a bare perusal of the charges as set out in Annexure-1 shows that the same is without any guidelines and that a uniform charge has been set out 2 irrespective of the content of the consignment. In support of his contention learned counsel has referred to an example of a chicken and buffalo carrying the same wharfage charges for taking delivery beyond the prescribed period. It is contended that although the goods are transported through Railway but the concerned papers are forwarded by the consignor through his bank for delivery to the consignee upon payment of the bill amount and unless these papers are received by the consignee, he cannot take delivery of the goods and thus for the delay caused in communicating of the papers the consignee is subjected to unwarranted charges towards demurrage/wharfage. Learned counsel for the Railways while responding to the contentions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and relying upon the statement made in the counter affidavit submits that the charges have been imposed with the object to check and deter the consignees from allowing their goods to remain within the railway premises for unduly long periods. It is contended that any goods if not subjected to this kind of charges would be allowed to remain within the Railway Premises and thus leading to piling of stocks within the premises and which would become difficult to manage. It is thus stated that if a consignee does not wish to be subjected to these charges, he should take delivery of his goods no sooner the same arrives at its destination. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court without expressing any opinion disposes of the writ petition reserving liberty to the petitioner to raise the issue as raised in the present 3 proceeding before the appropriate authority of the respondent- Railways and who shall consider and dispose of the same in accordance with law. Bibhash (Jyoti Saran, J.)