IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.749 of 2010 M/S OM NAMO CARGO, Shri Ram Puri Bhagwanpur P.S.Sadar District Muzaffarpur through its partner Dinesh Kumar Rai son of Jitendra Rai, resident of village & P.O. Ganguli P.S.Aurai District Muzaffarpur---------petitioner Versus 1.THE UNION OF INDIA through Ministry of Railways, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi 2.The General Manager East Central Railway Hajipur 3.The Chief Commercial Manager East Central Railway Hajipur 4.The Senior Divisional Commercial Manager cum Divisional Rly. Manager (C) East Central Railway Sonpur 5.The Divisional Commercial Manager (C) East Central Railway Sonpur 6.The Director Freight Marketing, Railway Board, Rail Bhawan New Delhi 7.The Executive Director Freight Marketing, Railway Board Rail Bhawan New Delhi 8.The Chief Parcel Supervisor Muzaffarpur------respondents ----------- For the petitioner :Ms.Sushmita Mishra,Advocate For the State :Mr.Mahesh Prasad,AC to SC 21 For the Railways :None --- 4. 01.7.2010 The matter has come up under the heading for ‘Orders on Petition’ for disposal of I.A.No. 4039 of 2010 but in view of the fact that the matter is already covered by the previous decision of this Court it has been taken up for final disposal of the main matter. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. No one appears for the respondent Railways although earlier also the matter was adjourned solely on account of his non-appearance. The petitioner seeks quashing of the letter dated 16.12.2009 (Annexure-1) by which 2 it is stated that the total outstanding dues against the petitioner is Rs.3,56,400/- only and it has been requested to deposit the same within two weeks as per the orders of this Court dated 4.12.2009. In respect of the dispute in question the petitioner had earlier approached this Court against an order dated 9.9.2009 passed by the Divisional Railway Manager, Sonpur by which the petitioner was informed that its lease with respect to FSLR/FC was being cancelled on account of non-deposit of the various payments with respect to the same. The case of the petitioner was that the lease having been granted to it for a period of three years by Work Order dated 25.9.2008 (Annexure-4), the Circular No.07 of 2007, which amended the earlier Circular No.12 of 2006, should be applied to its case since by the said subsequent Circular the amount as freight charges was to be deposited only one day in advance whereas by the earlier Circular it was for five days. On a consideration of the entire matter this Court quashed the order dated 9.9.2009 by virtue of which the security deposit of the 3 petitioner was forfeited and further held that the parties would be obliged to bind themselves to the conduct based on the circular dated 13.3.2007. It was further directed in the said decision that the petitioner shall clear all the outstanding dues of the respondent Railways within two weeks from that day. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the dues in question have arisen only because the petitioner was prevented by the authorities of the Railways from acting in accordance with terms of the Circular of 2007 and the petitioner had been prevented from working out the contracts and no outstanding amount is due from it. It is urged by learned counsel that even for the period when the petitioner’s lease with respect to FSLR/FC was cancelled and the earnest money forfeited, i.e., from 9.9.2009 to 4.12.2009, when this Court set aside the said order, outstanding amount has been shown. On a consideration of the aforesaid submission this Court is of the view that there was clear direction of this Court in its earlier order dated 4.12.2009 that the 4 petitioner shall clear all the outstanding dues of the Railways within two weeks from the date of the order. It is evident from the said order that the petitioner would be obliged to pay the dues before it can be permitted to operate the lease granted to it. The only submission of the petitioner which can be accepted is that since the tender of the petitioner itself had been cancelled and the earnest money forfeited by the order dated 9.9.2009 and the same was set aside by this Court by order dated 4.12.2009 it is not open to the authorities of the Railways to raise any outstanding dues with respect to the period. This Court finds that for as many as 12 days starting from 14.9.2009 till 30.11.2009 the dues amounting to Rs.8100/- per day total Rs. 97,200/-, have been raised by the Railways, which according to this Court could not be payable as the tender of the petitioner was cancelled on account of the wrong action of the authorities of the Railways. In the light of the aforesaid, this Court is of the view that the petitioner would be obliged to pay the amount under the letter 5 dated 16.12.2009(Annexure-1) after deducting the amount of Rs. 97,200/- from the same. The writ application is thus partly allowed in terms of the aforesaid observations and directions. (Ramesh Kumar Datta,J.) Spal/