Page No.# 1/8 GAHC010038932026 2026:GAU-AS:7324 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/1178/2026 STAR CEMENT LIMITED A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE SITUATED AT VILLAGE AND PO LUMSHONG PS KHLIEHRIATE DISTRICT EAST JAINTIA HILLS MEGHALAYA 793210 IN THE PRESENT PROCEEDINGS THE PTR COMPANY IT RTD BY SRI SANJIB KUMAR SAHARIA, AUTHORISED REP. OF THE COMPANY, VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS RAILWAY BOARD RAILWAY BHAWAN NEW DELHI 2:THE GENERAL MANAGER N F RAILWAY GUWAHATI 781001 3:THE SR DIV COMMERCIAL MANAGER N F RAILWAY ALIPURDUAR JUNCTION 736121 4:THE COMMERCIAL SUPERVISOR N F RAILWAY FALAKATA 735221 5:THE CHIEF GOODS SUPERVISOR N F RAILWAY FALAKATA 73522 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A CHOUDHURY, DR. ASHOK SARAF,MS. P JALAN,MR. AMIT GOYAL Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., MR. K GOGOI(C.G.C.) Page No.# 2/8 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY JUDGMENT Date : 22-05-2026 Heard Mr. A. Goyal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K. Gogoi, learned Central Government Counsel for the respondents. 2. By this writ petition, the petitioner has sought to invoke the extra-ordinary and discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to assail a demand amounting to Rs.39,01,515/- made by the respondent N.F. Railway authorities on the ground that the same is illegal and without authority and jurisdiction, and therefore, it is not sustainable in law. The petitioner has sought for setting aside and quashing of demand notices, dated 06.12.2025 [Annexure-VI], dated 22.12.2025 [Annexure-VII] & dated 05.02.2026 [Annexure-XI], whereby the petitioner has been directed to pay punitive and detention charges amounting to a total sum of Rs. 39,01,515/- [= Rs. 5,48,100/- + Rs. 33,53,415/-] on the ground that there were discrepancies in weighment sheets. The petitioners have also sought for setting aside and quashing of two detention notices, dated 20.02.2026 & dated 21.02.2026, issued by the respondent no. 5 restricting the petitioner from removing the materials from the Railway yard on account of non-payment of the alleged demanded amount. 3. The factual matrix narrated by the petitioner in this writ petition, in brief, is to the effect that the petitioner by electronically transmitted railway receipt dated 27.11.2025, bearing Tax Invoice no. 9925111835050048, had loaded 58 open-wagon consignment with clinker measuring 3828 MT [actual weight] Page No.# 3/8 against a chargeable quantity of 3910.6 MT from Salchapara, Assam to Falakata, West Bengal. According to the petitioner, it had complied with all railway loading rules and the loading was under proper supervision of the booking railway staff. The clinker rake loaded at Salchapara was scheduled for weighment at Langting. But, due to a technical failure of the weight-bridge in the said location, the first weighment was carried out at In-Motion Weighbridge, Dudhnoi on 30.11.2025. Upon the first weighment, certain wagons were found to be carrying excessive loads, as a result of which the petitioner sought permission for load adjustment on 01.12.2025. The adjustments of clinker rakes were made thereafter, by unloading on the siding. According to the petitioner, the wagons identified as overloaded were adjusted by unloading 168.01 MT clinker. The second weighment was conducted at In-Motion Weighbridge, Dudhnoi on 03.12.2025 and during the second weighment, 30 wagons which were found to be within permissible limits during the first weighment, were found to be suffering with a weight variation of up to 2.61% in gross weight. It was in that backdrop, the impugned detention and punitive charges were levied upon the respondent N.F. Railway authorities, that is, Rs. 5,48,100/- towards detention charges and Rs. 33,53,415/- towards punitive charges. 4. Mr. Gogoi, learned Central Government Counsel appearing for the respondents has raised a point of maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner has an adequate and efficacious statutory remedy under the provisions of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 read with the Railways Act, 1989. In support of such submission, he has referred to a number of decisions of Coordinate Benches of this Court including a Judgment & Order dated 29.01.2025 in W.P.[C] no. 7096/2021 [M/s Sadguru Engineers and Allied Page No.# 4/8 Services Private Limited and Another vs. Union of India and 4 others], and an Order dated 13.05.2026 in W.P.[C] no. 4899/2025 [M/s Satish Prasad and another vs. Union of India and another]. 5. This Court has gone through the provisions of the Railways Act, 1989, more particularly, Section 36 thereof, and the provisions of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, more particularly, Section 13 thereof. 6. Clause [c] of Section 36 of the Railways Act, 1989 has vested jurisdiction upon the Railway Claims Tribunal to decide of any complaint alleging about levying of unreasonable charges by Railway Administration. Section 36 of the Railways Act has provided as under – 36. Complaints against a railway administration.—Any complaint that a railway administration— [a] is contravening the provisions of section 70; or [b] is charging for the carriage of any commodity between two stations a rate which is unreasonable; or [c] is levying any other charge which is unreasonable, may be made to the Tribunal, and the Tribunal shall hear and decide any such complaint in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter. 7. The jurisdiction, powers and authority of the Claims Tribunal are delineated in Section 13 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987. Section 13 reads as under :- Page No.# 5/8 13. Jurisdiction, powers and authority of Claims Tribunal.— [1] The Claims Tribunal shall exercise, on and from the appointed day, all such jurisdiction, powers and authority as were exercisable immediately before that day by any civil court or a Claims Commissioner appointed under the provisions of the Railways Act,— [a] relating to the responsibility of the railway administrations as carriers under Chapter VII of the Railways Act in respect of claims for— [i] compensation for loss, destruction, damage, deterioration or non- delivery of animals or goods entrusted to a railway administration for carriage by railway; [ii] compensation payable under section 82A of the Railways Act or the rules made thereunder; and [b] in respect of the claims for refund of fares or part thereof or for refund of any freight paid in respect of animals or goods entrusted to a railway administration to be carried by railway. [1A] The Claims Tribunal shall also exercise, on and from the date of commencement of the provisions of section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989 [24 of 1989], all such jurisdiction, powers and authority as were exercisable immediately before that date by any civil court in respect of claims for compensation now payable by the railway administration under section 124A of the said Act or the rules made thereunder. [1B] The Claims Tribunal shall also exercise, on and from the commencement of Part XIV of Chapter VI of the Finance Act, 2017 [7 of 2017], the jurisdiction, powers and authority conferred on the Tribunal under Chapter VII of the Railways Act,1989 [24 of 1989]. [2] The provisions of the 3 [Railways Act, 1989 [24 of 1989]] and the rules made Page No.# 6/8 thereunder shall, so far as may be, be applicable to the inquiring into or determining, any claims by the Claims Tribunal under this Act. 8. By amendments brought in the Railways Act, 1989 by Act 24 of 1989, clause [40] of Section 2 has been substituted. ‘Tribunal’ now means the Tribunal referred to in Section 33. Section 33 has been substituted as under :- Section 33. Tribunal – The Railway Claims Tribunal established under Section 3 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 [54 of 1987] shall, on and from the commencement of Part XIV of Chapter VI of the Finance Act, 2017, be the Tribunal for the purposes of this Act and the said Tribunal shall exercise the jurisdiction, authority and powers conferred on it by or under this Act. 9. Taking into consideration the above provisions of the Railway Act and the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, a Co-ordinate Bench in M/s Sadguru Engineers and Allied Services Private Limited [supra] has observed as under :- 19. On bare reading of the above provisions, shows that any complain against the Railway Administration in respect of contravention of the provisions of section 70, or charging for the carriage of any commodity between two stations at a rate which is unreasonable or levying of any other charge which is unreasonable, person aggrieved may make a complaint to the Tribunal under the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987. Having considered the provisions, the present case appears to be covered under Sub-Section[c] of Section 36 of the Railways Act, 1989, against which a complaint may be made before the Tribunal under the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987. * * * * * * Page No.# 7/8 27. Coming back to the remedy available under the law, it is to be taken note that by the Act of Parliament, the Railway Tribunals Act, 1987 and the Railways Act, 1989 have been enacted providing a remedy for making complaints against the Railway Administration which may be made before the Railway Claims Tribunal. 28. As noted above, the respondents authorities has failed to show that a Penal/Higher Demurrage Charge has been demanded after wide publicity and notice of 48 hours and the grievance is levying of charge which is 6th times of the normal demurrage charge which according to the petitioner is arbitrary, in my view would fall under Section 36[c] of the Railways Act, 1989 for which a complaint may be made to the Tribunal under the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987. * * * * * * 30. In view of the foregoing discussions, in my considered view it would be appropriate that the petitioners approach the remedy available under the law. Accordingly, it is provided that the writ petitioners may approach the available remedy as per the provisions of Railway Claims Tribunal, 1987, and Railways Act, 1989. Consequently, without interfering with the impugned Demurrage Charge bill and the impugned Penal Demurrage Charge dated 22.11.2021 issued by the Divisional Railway Manager[C] Lumding, whereby, the petitioners have been directed to pay of Rs. 5,15,970/-[Rupees Five Lakh Fifteen Thousand Nine Hundred Seventy] only as Penal Demurrage Charge, the writ petition is disposed of providing a liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum. 10. Having gone through the said decision of the Coordinate Bench, this Court is of the view that the assail made in this writ petition in respect of the issues, mentioned hereinabove, are within the jurisdiction of the Railway Claims Tribunal. Keeping in mind the proposition that judicial discipline demands that Page No.# 8/8 the decision of the aforesaid decision of the Coordinate Bench is to be followed, and as the observations made by the Coordinate Bench appear to be in conformity with the provisions of the Railways Act, 1989 as well as the Railway Claims Tribunal, 1987, this Court is of the view that this Court should refrain from entertaining this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in view of the presence of such adequate and efficacious statutory remedy. 11. In view of the above fact situation, this writ petition is not entertained in view of availability of adequate and efficacious statutory remedy to the petitioner. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed, reserving the liberty to the petitioner to approach the Railway Claims Tribunal seeking relief against the actions of the respondent Railway authorities, if so advised. In view of dismissal of the writ petition, the interim order passed earlier, stands recalled. No cost. JUDGE Comparing Assistant