6.4.2026 ct no. 10 Sl. 04 AGM WPA 24843 of 2025 Mohd Abdul Wadood -Versus- Union of India & Ors. Mr. Saptarshi Roy. Ms. Kakali Das Chakraborty. …for the Petitioner. Mr. Swapan Kumar Pal. …for the respondent no. 5. Mr. Dipankar Das Gupta. Mr. Dipankar Ghosh. … For the State respondents. Mrs. Aparna Banerjee. Mr. Sujit Bhuiya. … for the Railway Authorities. 1. Heard the parties through their respective learned counsels. 2. The reports filed by the railway authorities and the respondent No. 5 are taken on record. 3. The grievance of the petitioner, who operates as a leaseholder, pertains to the recurring non- functionality and lack of proper maintenance of the in-motion weighbridge hereinafter referred to as (IMWB for the sake of brevity and convenience) located at Shalimar, Paddmapukur. 4. The petitioner submits that upon fulfilling all eligibility criteria, he submitted the Bid in response to the E-Auction and has been declared the successful bidder under the E-Auction Parcel Leasing Policy (Station FMC-11/2022, FMC-12/2022 and other circulars as subsequently amended and introduced. 5. The petitioner submits that the he is the leaseholder of two leased parcel vans (LVPHS) operating on a round trip basis between Shalimar (SHM)/Cherlapally Railway Station (CHZ), Shalimar via Train Number 18045/18046 (East Coast Express) for a period of two years. It is further submitted that the erratic functioning of the weighbridge leads to significant financial loss, particularly in the form of punitive charges or risk of termination for alleged overloading. 6. The petitioner submits that the in-motion weighbridge at the site i.e. Shalimar, Paddmapukur is frequently found to be out of order and produces inconsistent readings which are not in conformity with the standards prescribed by the Legal Meteorology Act, 2009. 7. Despite repeated representations, the mandatory periodical recalibrations and stamping by the Respondent No. 5 has not been conducted in coordination with the Railway authorities. Such failure to maintain the equipments, results in “inmotion errors,” for which the petitioners, being the leaseholder, suffers, immensely and is unfairly penalised under the Railways act and the relevant marketing circulars. 2 8. In the instant case, the faulty readings recorded by the in-motion weighbridge at Paddmapukur have been caused due to lack of proper maintenance and regular verification by Respondent No. 5 and the Railways authorities. 9. At the time of transportation of the consignment comprising various perishable eggs at Shalimar, the Railway authorities conducted in-motion weighing of the parcel van without providing any notice to the petitioner and/or any opportunity to make a representation, which runs contrary to the conditions laid down in the Freight Marketing circular No. 7/2021. 10. Subsequently the railway authorities informed the petitioner with regard to the overloading and detached the parcel van from the train, keeping it under sealed custody at Shalimar, and thereby debarring the petitioner from unloading on the ground of “overloading”. 11. Due to such faulty tare reading of the electronic weighbridge, the petitioner has suffered monetary loss and the consignment of perishable eggs has been found to be damaged. 12. The petitioner further submits that as per the clauses mentioned in the Freight circular the Railways authorities are required to weigh the consignment at the originating station commensurate with the weight declared in the 3 manifest, any deviation therefrom constitute a breach of the prescribed procedure. 13. Thereafter the consignments are taken for reweighment at the termini, which reveals that the weight exceeded the statutory tolerance limit, contrary to the weighment at the originating station. 14. The petitioner submits that due to such alleged overloading, he has suffered the financial loss and damage to the consignment. The current weighment protocol lacks transparency as the detention occurs because leaseholders are often not informed of the weighment time, thereby depriving them of the opportunity to witness the process. 15. The learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 5 submits that every half yearly interval, the in- motion weighbridges are inspected, tested and accordingly certified by the functioning capacity. 16. Respondent No. 5 submits that the railway authorities are the authorised persons to maintain and repair faulty in-motion weighbridges. The certifications of the equipment can be carried out provided the railways facilitates the necessary technical environment for testing. 17. The learned counsel appearing for the railway authorities submits that in the instant case the faulty in-motion weighbridge at Paddmapukur has already been rectified and the grievances raised by the petitioner have been redressed, as such, the Writ 4 petition has become infructuous as the cause no longer survives. 18. It is further submitted that maintenance is governed by a contract with a third party vendor and that the weighbridge is subject to regular inspections and certification by the railway authorities in accordance with statutory requirement. It is contended that certification by the railway authorities required testing the availability of which depends on operational feasibility. 19. In the instant case the reweighment has also been conducted manually at the request of the petitioner. The consignments have been received by the petitioner unconditionally and no complaint has been lodged regarding any damage at the time of delivery. Accordingly, there is no evidence of any damage having been caused to the consignments. 20. The delay in release of the consignment occurred due to the time taken for reweighment and subsequent manual verification of the weight of the consignment which has been conducted at the behest of the request made by the petitioner. 21. In this context, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently opposes the same and draws attention to paragraphs 21 to 23 of the Writ petition to demonstrate that due to defective weighment procedure and miscalculation, the 5 petitioner has sustained loss causing grave financial hardship. 22. The petitioner relies upon a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court wherein it has been observed that in MAT 591 of 2022 with IA No. CAN 1 of 2022, Union of India & Ors. Versus Gopal Shrinarayan Shah & Anr.: “ Having heard the parties and anxiously considering the materials placed, this Court finds that the Orders of the Hon’ble Court dated 26th August, 2021, 11th February, 2022, 31st March, 2022, 7th April, 2022 and, lastly the 8th of April, 2022 disclose detailed application of mind to the principal facts in issue namely: a) The correctness of the in-motion Weigh Bridge at Padmapukur to be checked on an as-is-where-is basis by the Controller of Legal Metrology; and b) Weighment of the empty general coach carrying the consignments. This Court notices that the directions passed by the Hon’ble Court on the above two issues do not in any manner affect, impact or infringe the power of the Railways to weigh or re-weigh consignments as provided under Sections 78 and 79 of the Railways Act. This court finds that the germane issue before the Hon’ble Court was not the power to carry out the weighment in terms of the statute but specifically the correctness of the weighment carried out in the facts of each case connected to Issues a) and b) as recorded above. 23. Due to lack of upkeep and maintenance of in- motion weighbridge at Shalimar, Paddmapukur the parcel vans are shown as overloaded due to malfunctioning of the static weighbridges, resulting in erratic readings and exposing them to penal action. 24. In conspectus of the above this Court is of the view that the lack of synergy between the Railway authorities and the Legal Metrology Department 6 being the respondent No. 5 herein, cannot be allowed to cause prejudice to the service users. The accuracy of an in-motion weighbridge is a statutory requirement and its failure strikes at the root of fair trend and revenue assessment. 25. Upon consideration of the submissions made by the parties and the documents placed on record, the following directions are hereby issued: i.) The railway authorities must maintain accurate records of the weighment process including the weight recorded and any discrepancies noted. ii.) The railways shall ensure that in-motion weightbridge is calibrated and certified by a competent authority at least once every six months. iii.) The leaseholders shall be given prior notice of the weightment process and shall be entitled to be present during the weightment. iv.) In event of a dispute, the matter shall be referred to the railway authorities for resolution and their decision shall be final and binding. v.) A digital or physical log for the last stamping and/or calibration of the in-motion weighbridge must be made available for inspection upon request by the leaseholder in the event of a dispute. 7 vi.) In cases of significant variation the leaseholder may apply for reweighment at the next available weighbridge, subject to payment of the requisite fees which shall be refundable if the initial reading is found to be erroneous. vii.) The in-motion weighbridge should be certified by the respondent No. 4 in strict adherence to the prescribed rules. 26. In view of the above directions, the Writ petition is disposed of. 27. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the learned counsel for the parties on usual undertakings (Smita Das De, J.) 8