IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14448 of 2009 ***** 1. M/S OM NAMO CARGO SHRI RAM PURI BHAGWANPUR, P.S- SADAR, DISTT- MUZAFFARPUR THROUGH ITS PARTNER DINESH KUMAR ROY S/O JITENDRA RAI R/O VILL & P.O- GANGULI, P.S- AURAI DISTT- MUZAFFARPUR. …. …. Petitioner Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA 2. THE GENERAL MANAGER EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY, HAJIPUR 3. THE CHIEF COMMERCIAL MANAGER EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY, HAJIPUR 4. THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL COMMERCIAL MANAGER EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY, SONEPUR, VAISHALI 5. THE DIRECTOR FREIGHT MARKETING, RAILWAY BOARD, RAIL BHAWAN NEW DELHI 6. THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FREIGHT MARKETING RAILWAY BOARD, RAIL BHAWAN, NEW DELHI 7. THE CHIEF PARCEL SUPERVISOR MUZAFFARPUR. …. …. Respondents ----------- For the Petitioner : Ms. Sushmita Mishra, Advocate Mr. K.B.Sharma, Advocate Mr. Surya Narayan Sah, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Siddhartha Prasad, Advocate ----------- 6. 4.12.2009. Heard counsel for the parties. After much submissions made at the bar from both the sides, the issue which finally boils down for consideration of the Court is whether the circular dated 27.3.2006 contained in Annexure-2 can be enforced against the petitioner if the same stood repealed by Annexure-3 dated 13.3.2007. The action against the petitioner had been taken on the basis of the earlier circular of 2006. This aspect is not in dispute. The stand of the respondent railways authorities is that the petitioner is committing continuing default in depositing of freight charges on hiring of the S.L.Rs. and there was commitment made by the petitioner to abide by the 2006 circular. There has also been further delay in communication to the local authorities on the change of policy which - 2 - was effected in the year 2007. The issue now answered by the Court is that the respondent authorities will direct the petitioner to act in accordance with Annexure-3 circular dated 13.3.2007. Petitioner would be bound to follow the said circular and meet the obligation conferred upon him. The petitioner shall clear all the outstanding dues of the respondent railways within two weeks from today. In view of the above, the impugned order contained in Annexure-1 dated 9.9.2009, by virtue of which the security deposit has been forfeited, stands quashed. The parties would be obliged to bind themselves to the conduct based on the circular contained in Annexure-3 dated 13.3.2007. The writ application stands allowed to the extent indicated above. Pawan/- (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)