Judgment & Order (Oral):

1. Heard Mr. A. R. Tahabildar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and Mr. K. Gogoi, the learned CGC appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 1 to 6.

2. The Petitioner has filed the instant writ petition seeking the following reliefs which are reproduced herein under:

                   “(i) Why a writ in the nature of Mandamus should not be issued directing the Respondents to provide adequate halting/stopping time of at least 45 minutes to one hour at Kamakhya (KYQ) station for Train No.12520 (now re-numbered as 15660) so as to enable the petitioner to load parcels in the Train No.12520 (now re-numbered as 15660) at the Kamakhya station.

                   (ii) Why a writ in the nature of Mandamus should not be issued directing the Respondents to stop collecting freight and lease charges for the leased Parcel Van in the Train No.12520 (now re-numbered as 15660) for the Kamakhya (KYQ) to Lokmanya Tilak Terminus (LTT) route.

                   (iii) Why a writ in the nature of Mandamus should not be issued directing the respondents to refund the entire amount of freight and lease charges already collected from the petitioner, when no loading was possible in the leased VP of the Train No.12520 (now re-numbered as 15660) as mentioned in Paragraph No. 3 and 11 of the writ petition and on subsequent dates, along with interest at a rate deemed fit by this Hon’ble Court.”

3. The brief facts of the instant case are that an Agreement was entered into by and between the Railway Authorities with the Petitioner for leasing of parcel space in parcel LVPH by Train No.12520-12519 Kamakhya – Lokmanya Tilak Terminus – Kamakhya AC Express, Ex. Kamakhya (KYQ) – Lokmanya Tilak Terminus (LTT) – Kamakhya (KYQ) on round trip basis for five years. The said Agreement was executed on 31.08.2022 and is valid till 30.08.2027.

4. Clause 4 of the said Agreement stipulates advance payment of lump sum leased freight. Clause 5 of the Agreement stipulates the adjustment in advance lump sum leased freight due to non-loading of the Parcel Van (LVPH). In terms with Clause 5.1, when the leased space is not made available by Railways due to unavoidable circumstances as mentioned in the said Clause, the Petitioner shall be exempted from payment of freight for that particular day(s) (non-loading) subject to verification of circumstances by multidisciplinary team. It is also mentioned that if the freight is deposited in advance, it shall be adjusted against the next loading/payment. Further to that, in the circumstance, the freight cannot be adjusted, then the same shall be refunded.

5. Clause 8.22 and Clause 8.23 of the said Agreement are relevant and the same are reproduced herein under:

                   “8.22 Leaseholder shall complete loading/unloading operation from leased Parcel van within the schedule stoppage time of the train at intermediate station. Detention of train on account of loading, unloading of parcels in the leased parcel van at originating or intermediate or destination station, shall, in no case, be allowed.

                   8.23 Three hours free time from the time at which the Parcel Van/Vehicle is placed in position, shall be allowed for loading or unloading of parcels in case the leased Parcel Vans placed at separate terminal at originating and destination station.”

6. From a perusal of the above quoted Clauses, it would be seen that it is agreed to that the Petitioner who is the leaseholder shall complete loading/unloading operation from leased parcel van within the schedule stoppage time of the train at the intermediate station. It is further mentioned that the detention of train on account of loading, unloading of parcels in the leased parcel van at originating or intermediate or destination station, shall, in no case, be allowed. However, in terms with Clause 8.23 of the Agreement, three hours free time was provided to the Petitioner for loading/unloading of the parcels in the parcel van/vehicle in case the leased parcel vans placed at separate terminal at the originating and destination station.

7. The admitted facts as would be apparent from the materials on record would show that this particular train bearing Train No.12520 which earlier originated from Kamakhya to Lokmanya Tilak Terminus was changed whereby the station at Agartala became the originating station and the resultant effect is that the Kamakhya Station became an intermediate station. In that view of the matter, Clause 8.23 of the Agreement cannot be made applicable in respect to the Train No.12520 and in such case, Clause 8.22 would apply.

8. It is the further case of the Petitioner that the Petitioner paid advance payment of lump sum leased freight for loading of certain parcels from Kamakhya station in Train No.12520 on 14.03.2024. However, on the ground that the train in question was stopped only for 4 (four) minutes on 14.03.2024, the Petitioner could not load the items for which the advance freight was paid.

9. The Petitioner thereupon filed a representation before the various Respondent Authorities seeking refund of the same and the same was not allowed and as such the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition seeking the reliefs as aforementioned.

10. Mr. A. R. Tahabildar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submitted that the incident on 14.03.2024 was not a sole instance and there have been various other instances as have been specifically mentioned in the table to paragraph No.11 of the writ petition wherein on account of no fault of the Petitioner, the Petitioner could not load in spite of payment of the advance lease freight.

11. This Court has also heard Mr. K. Gogoi, the learned Standing counsel for the Respondents who submitted that these aspects which have been mentioned at paragraph No.11 as well as the representation which has been enclosed are matters which would require a detail factual adjudication and the Petitioner has an alternative and efficacious remedy by approaching the Railway Claims Tribunal and as such, this Court may not be inclined to entertain the instant writ petition.

12. This Court has duly considered the respective submission made on behalf of the parties and has also perused the materials on record.

13. It is relevant to take note of that the Agreement which was entered into with the Petitioner i.e. on 31.08.2022 at a time when the Kamakhya station was either the originating station or the destination station of the Train No.12520. Subsequent thereto, the Kamakhya Station no longer remains an originating or the destination station rather it became an intermediate station in respect to the Train No.12520. Under such circumstances, the aforestated Clause 8.23 of the Agreement dated 31.308.2022 would not be applicable.

14. This Court also takes note of that the Railway Authorities have the expertise in fixing the time limit in respect to each intermediate station and an interference to the mandate fixed by the Railway Authorities stipulating the time for stoppage of a train in an intermediate station would affect the operation of the trains. Under such circumstances, the reliefs which have been sought for at Serial Nos. (i) and (ii) in the writ petition cannot be granted.

15. In respect to the relief which has been sought for at Serial No. (iii), the said is based upon the details which have been provided by the Petitioner at Paragraph No.11 of the writ petition and the said aspect cannot be decided in a proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution as the same would require a detail adjudication of facts on the basis of evidence.

16. This Court also takes note of that the Railway Claims Tribunal provides an effective and efficacious remedy to the Petitioner and as such, it is the opinion of this Court that the instant writ petition is not a fit case to be entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution.

17. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands dismissed.

18. The Petitioner herein however would be at liberty to approach the Railway Claims Tribunal in respect to the claims in terms with Clause 5.1 of the Agreement dated 31.08.2022, if so advised. The dismissal of the present writ petition would neither preclude nor prejudice the Petitioner to approach the Railway Claims Tribunal and question the inaction of the Respondent Authorities to refund the payments made by the Petitioner.