4 24-09-2025 AKG Ct. 15 WPA 15346 of 2025 Mohd Abdul Wadood Vs. Union of India & Ors. Mr. Saptarshi Roy, Ms. Kakali Das Chakraborty …for the Petitioner Ms. Manju Agarwal, Ms. Debjani Ghoshal …for Union of India Mr. Susovan Sengupta, Mr. Kamal Mishra, Mr. Siddhartha Banerjee …for the State The petitioner was awarded a lease contract for a 24- tonne parcel van on Train No. 18045/18046 (SHM–HYB– SHM), operating on a round-trip basis between Shalimar and Secunderabad, by the South Eastern Railway. The lease was granted for a period of two years, commencing on September 4, 2024 and ending on September 3, 2026. Pursuant to the said agreement, the petitioner booked one parcel van with a capacity of 24 tonnes, bearing coach number VPH No. NE 215318, which was attached to Train No. 18045/18046 on 27 June 2025 from CHZ (Hyderabad) for the transportation of consignments to Kharagpur and Shalimar. According to the petitioner’s manifest, the total parcel weight was recorded as 22,742 kg (i.e., 22.742 tonnes). On June 29, 2025, the Railway Authority at Shalimar conducted an in-motion weighment of the aforementioned parcel van (Coach No. VPH NE 215318), during which an 2 overloading of 1.46 tonnes was allegedly detected. In determining the extent of overloading, the Railway Authority considered the tare weight of the said LVPH (Long Vehicle Parcel Hub) coach to be 36.96 tonnes. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that, in light of the circular dated September 15, 2020— appearing at page 39 of the writ petition and issued by the General Manager (Mechanical), Railway Coach Factory, Kapurthala—the tare weight should have been considered as 39.5 tonnes. It is further submitted that had the tare weight of the LVPH coach been correctly taken as 39.5 tonnes instead of 36.96 tonnes, the total weight would not have exceeded the permissible limit of 24 tonnes, and no overloading would have been found. While there appears to be merit in the mathematical reasoning presented by the petitioner’s counsel, the applicability of the circular dated September 15, 2020 is disputed by learned counsel representing the Railway Authority. It is argued that the said circular is specific to coaches built under drawing number ―CC83108,‖ whereas the LVPH coach in question is of a different configuration. Accordingly, the Railway contends that the circular does not apply to the instant case. This Court finds it unnecessary to adjudicate the applicability of the said circular at this stage. It is noted that 3 the Railway Authority, in principle, has agreed to conduct a re-weighment of the subject LVPH coach (bearing No. NE- 215318/C) to verify its actual tare weight. However, it is submitted that the said re-weighment exercise cannot be undertaken at this juncture, as the coach in question is currently engaged in goods transportation operations across India. In view of the above circumstances, the Court finds no justification to keep the writ petition pending. The Railway Authority is directed to undertake the re-weighment of the aforementioned coach within a period of three months from the date of this order. If, upon re-weighment, it is determined that there was no overloading attributable to the petitioner, any amount collected as penalty shall be refunded to the petitioner forthwith. Conversely, if overloading is confirmed, the Railway Authority shall be at liberty to take appropriate action in accordance with law. It is further clarified that the re-weighment exercise shall be conducted in the presence of the petitioner or an authorised representative. Until the said exercise is completed in terms of this order, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner in connection with the alleged overloading. 4 Accordingly, WPA 15346 of 2025 stands disposed of. Urgent certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance with the requisite formalities. (Kausik Chanda, J.)