10.02.2025 Court No.13 Item No.13 AP/sp MAT 999 of 2024 With CAN 1 of 2024 With CAN 2 of 2024 Union of India and Ors. Vs. National Carrying Corporation and Ors. Mr. Sanajit Kumar Ghosh Mr. Asit Kr. De Ms. Susmita Senapati … For the Appellants. Re.: CAN 1 of 2024 1. The application being CAN 1 of 2024 has been filed seeking condonation of delay. 2. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed. Delay in filing of the appeal is condoned. 3. Accordingly, CAN 1 of 2024 is allowed. Re.: MAT 999 of 2024 With CAN 2 of 2024 4. Despite service of notice, respondents are not represented. 5. Affidavit of service filed in Court today is taken on record. 6. The instant appeal is filed by the railways against a judgement and order dated 11th March, 2024 passed by the Single Bench of this Court in W.P. 21636 (W) of 2 2019 (National Carrying Corporation and Anr. Vs. The Union of India and Ors.). 7. By the impugned judgement, a demand for excess loading and punitive charges of Rs.1,11,745/- has been directed to be refund to the writ petitioners/respondents. 8. The brief facts relevant to the case are that the private respondent/writ petitioner is a lease holder from the Railways of 23 tones of parcel van volume for a period of five years between Howrah to Dibrugarh. 9. On 18th November, 2019 the railways weighed and loaded a parcel van of 17,600 kgs of goods of the private respondent on the Kamrup Express on Howrah Station. When the parcel van came to be linked with the Kamrup Express from Howrah on being weighed on motion, the appellant found 2.10 tones extra loaded by the respondent. Immediately a demand for excess freight towards excess weight was made on the writ petitioners/respondents including punitive charges. The writ petitioners/respondents on 19th November, 2019 duly made payment of the same and demanded re- weighment of the rake as well as the goods. 10. However by a communication dated 19th November, 2019, made in handwriting the writ petitioners/respondents themselves admitted to have loaded 20 MT i.e. 2.5 tones of weight in excess of the declared weight in the manifest. 3 11. The weight showed on Howrah station was 25,100 Kgs. according to the appellant. The railways assessed the excess weight of 2.10 tones at a sum of Rs.1,11,745/- and a demand was raised in that regard. The writ petitioners/respondents paid the excess amount and demanded re-weighment. By that time the train had already left Howrah Station for its destination to Guwahati and Tinsukia. 12. This Court notes that when the writ petitioners /respondents themselves has admitted in writing that they have loaded goods about 2.5 tones in extra of the weight declared in the manifest, they are not entitled to any equity or relief. 13. It appears that the appellant/railways have charged the writ petitioners/respondents for the weight in excess of declared quantity. 14. This Court is, therefore, of the view that the learned Single Judge has erred in setting aside the demand of the railways for a sum of Rs.1,11,745/- and directing refund thereof to the writ petitioners/respondents. 15. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the impugned judgement shall stand set aside. 16. Accordingly MAT 999 of 2024 is hereby allowed. 4 17. Consequently, all connected pending applications, if any, is also disposed of. 18. There shall be no order as to costs. 19. All parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. (Rajasekhar Mantha, J.) (Ajay Kumar Gupta, J.)