THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU WRIT PETITION No. 11290 of 2010 Dated: 15-9-2010 Between: Advocates Association of Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, rep. by its General Secretary Sri Atluri Krishna Prasad ….Appellant And Ministry of Railways, Govt. of India (Railway Board), rep. by its Jt. Director, Railway Claims Tribunal, Railway Board, New Delhi and others …Respondents. Oral Order: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Goda Raghuram) This writ petition is misconceived. The petitioner is the Advocates Association of the Railway Claims Tribunal, assailing the Notification No. GSR 96(E), dated 22-2-2010 of the Government of India, Ministry of Railways, the 1st respondent, as invalid, illegal, arbitrary and against the legitimate rights of the railway claimants. The impugned notification dated 22-2-2010 issued by the Government of India in exercise of powers under Section 30 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (Central Act 54 of 1987) amending the Railway Claims Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1989 by the Railway Claims Tribunal (Procedure) Amendment Rules, 2010. By this amendment, it is enjoined that while preferring a claim before the Tribunal, the Bank Account of the claimant; the name of the bank and branch; and the type of the account in Form No. II, Part III under Rule 5 of the Railway Claims Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1989 have to be furnished. The learned counsel for the petitioner would urge that this is an arbitrary prescription. This contention does not merit acceptance. The amended prescription has been incorporated to ensure that the monetary benefits of any claim allowed by the Tribunal would effectively reach the legitimate destination, namely the claimant through deposit in his bank account and therefore furnishing of the bank account of the claimant or claimants, as the case may be, is now enjoined by the impugned amendment. The impugned amendment is neither arbitrary, qua Article 14 of the Constitution nor irrational. In any event, such marginal inconvenience if any that is caused by the prescription that every claimant or group of claimants are required to open a bank account and furnish the same at the time of preferring a claim would not warrant judicial review on the principle of de minimis non curat lex-The law does not deal with trifles. There are no merits. The writ petition is dismissed at the stage of admission. There shall however be no order as to costs. _______________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J ___________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J 15th September, 2010 GRR