IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.612 of 2009 1. The Union of India through the secretary, Ministry of Railways, New Delhi. 2. The East Central Railway through its General Manager, East Central Railway, Hajipur. 3. The Chief Commercial Manager, East Central Railways, Block B, Dighi, Hajipur. 4. The Divisional Railway Manager, East Central Railway, Hajipur. 5. The Additional Chief Commercial Manager, Marketing East Central Railway, Hajipur. 6. The Executive Director, Freight Marketing, Railway Board, New Delhi. 7. The Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, East Central Railway, Danapur. 8. The Deputy Chief Commercial Manager, Marketing East Central Railway, Hajipur. 9. The Chief Parcel Supervisor, SCR, East Central Railway, Rajendra Nagar Terminal, Patna. Versus M/S SCORPION EXPRESS PVT.LTD. having its registered office at Ashok Cinema Building, Budh Marg, Patna through its Branch Incharge and Constituted Attorney Sri Pravez Ahmad Siddiqui, son of Razi Ahmad Siddiqui. -------- For the Appellants :- Mr. D. K. Sinha, Sr. Advocate Mr. Sunil Kumar Ravi. For the Respondent : M/S. K. D. Chatterjee, Amlesh Kumar Verma & Sanjeev Sharan -------- 3 10/07/2009 Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the sole respondent. We have been taken through the letter of the respondent dated 9.2.2007 which is available in the records of the writ case as Annexure- R/5 and also through the Freight Marketing Circular of 2006 of Ministry of Railways (Railway Board) (Annexure R/3) dated 6.9.2006. On reading those documents it is not possible to accept the contention of the appellants that there was a prior agreement between - 2 - the parties that clause 6.4 may be deleted by the appellants unilaterally in case the Railway Board subsequently decided for deletion of that clause. The judgment and order under appeal has considered the relevant facts in the right perspective and clause 25.2 of the contract has also been correctly interpreted to hold that the Railways could not ignore clause 25.2 so as to delete clause 6.4 of the contract. We find no good reason to take a different view in the matter. This appeal is dismissed as one without merit. (Shiva Kirti Singh, ACJ.) (Anjana Prakash, J.) AMIN