5 24-09-2025 AKG Ct. 15 WPA 15413 of 2025 Mohd Abdul Wadood Vs. Union of India & Ors. Mr. Saptarshi Roy, Ms. Kakali Das Chakraborty …for the Petitioner Mr. Koushik Roy, Mr. Sourav Mondal …for Union of India Mr. Pantu Deb Roy, Mr. Debasish Chakraborty …for Respondent Nos. 5 & 6 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 from September 4, 2024 to September 3, 2026. Pursuant to the said agreement, the petitioner booked a 24-tonne capacity parcel van bearing coach number VPH No. SE 203453/C, attached to Train No. 18045/18046, on June 30, 2025 from CHZ (Hyderabad) for transportation of consignments to Kharagpur and Shalimar. As per the petitioner’s manifest, the total parcel weight was recorded as 22,220 kg. On June 29, 2025, the Railway Authority at Shalimar conducted an in-motion weighment of the said parcel van (Coach No. VPH SE 203453/C), during which an overloading of 3.62 tonnes was allegedly detected. In arriving at this 2 conclusion, the Railway Authority considered the tare weight of the subject LVPH (Long Vehicle Parcel Hub) coach to be 35.98 tonnes. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that, in view of the circular dated September 15, 2020— appearing at page 38 of the writ petition and issued by the General Manager (Mechanical), Railway Coach Factory, Kapurthala—the tare weight ought to have been taken as 39.5 tonnes. It is further submitted that had the tare weight of the LVPH coach been taken as 39.5 tonnes, instead of 35.98 tonnes, the Railway Authority would not have found the total weight to exceed the permissible carrying capacity of 24 tonnes. While the Court finds some merit in the mathematical reasoning advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the applicability of the said circular dated September 15, 2020 is disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the Railway Authority. It is contended that the circular cited is applicable only to coaches manufactured under drawing number ―CC83108,‖ whereas the LVPH coach involved in the present writ petition is of a different configuration. Accordingly, it is argued that the said circular does not apply to the present case. 3 This Court deems it unnecessary to adjudicate upon the applicability of the aforementioned circular at this stage. It is noted that the Railway Authority, in principle, has agreed to conduct a re-weighment of the subject LVPH coach (bearing No. SE 203453/C) to verify its actual tare weight. However, it is submitted that the said exercise cannot be carried out immediately, as the coach in question is currently engaged in the transportation of goods across various regions of India. In view of the above, the Court finds no justification for keeping the writ petition pending. The Railway Authority is directed to undertake the re-weighment of the subject coach within a period of three months from the date of this order. Should the re-weighment reveal that no overloading occurred at the instance of the petitioner, any penalty amount previously realised shall be refunded forthwith. Conversely, if overloading is confirmed, the Railway Authority shall be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law. It is further clarified that the re-weighment shall be conducted in the presence of the petitioner or his authorised representative. Until the completion of the said exercise in accordance with this order, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner in relation to the alleged overloading. 4 Accordingly, WPA 15413 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.)