Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010192452013 2026:GAU-AS:8307 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : MFA/62/2013 UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, N.F. RAILWAY, MALIGAON, GUWAHATI, DIST. KAMRUP, ASSAM. VERSUS M/S. FUEL SOURCES INDIA PVT. LTD. SOHIL NIWAS, 3RD FLOOR, CHHETRIBARI ROAD, A.T. ROAD, GUWAHATI-1 Advocate for the Petitioner : MRS.U CHAKRABORTY, SC, NF RLY,MS.M CHATTERJEE,MSK KALITA Advocate for the Respondent : MR.K P MAHESWARI , MR. DIVYANSH RATHI,MR.A GOYAL,MR.A CHOUDHURY,MR.B MAHESHWARI BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER 11.06.2026 [1]Heard Ms. U. Chakraborty, the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant. Also heard Mr. D. Rathi, the learned counsel for the respondent. [2]The learned senior counsel for the appellant Page No.# 2/5 submits that in this case, the impugned judgment was delivered by a Member (Technical), Railway Claims Tribunal, Guwahati Bench Sitting Singly. She submits that in this regard, several earlier judgments of this court are there, where it has been observed that unless an authorisation under Section 4(4) of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act 1987 is there, the Member (Technical) cannot decide the claim cases under Section 4 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987. Hence, she submits that this case is required to be remanded back to the Railway Claims Tribunal for a fresh adjudication by a competent bench of Railway Claims Tribunal, Guwahati. She submits that when the impugned judgment was delivered there was no general words special order under Section 4 (4) of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 was there authorising the Railway Claims Tribunal, Guwahati to decide the claim cases under Section 4 sitting singly. [3]On the other hand, Mr. D. Rahti, the learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently opposed the prayer for remanding the case back to the Railway Claims Tribunal. He submits that though recently, the Principal Bench of Railway Claims Tribunal, Delhi has issued an authorisation letter No. RCT/DLI/Judicial Policy/2023 dated 29.04.2026, whereby, Member (Technical) Railway Claims Tribunal, Guwahati has Page No.# 3/5 been authorised to take up claims cases upto the value of Rs.2,00,000/-sitting singly. He, however, submits that a co-ordinate bench of this court in the case of “M/s Meghalaya Cements Ltd. Vs. Union of India And 3 Ors.” reported in “WP (C ) No. 2736/2026” by its order dated 27.05.2026, has suspended the operation of the aforesaid letter. Hence, he submits that even if the matter is remanded back, same cannot be taken up by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Guwahati Bench Sitting Singly. He also submits that presently no judicial member is there in Railway Claims Tribunal. Hence, in view of the long pendency of the present case, the appeal may be decided on merit. [4]I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides. [5] It appears that the suspension on communication dated 29.04.2026, by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Delhi, Principal Bench authorising the Member (Technical), RCT, Guwahati to take up claims cases upto the value of Rs. 2,00,000/- has been made only in respect of the case of the petitioner of “WP (C ) No. 2736/2026”. The stay granted in the aforesaid case regarding the operation of communication dated 29.04.2026, is not a general and absolute stay. Even if this court intends to decide the appeal on merit, the Page No.# 4/5 first question which this court will be confronted with is whether the impugned judgment was passed by a Bench of Railway Claims Tribunal, having jurisdiction to do so under Section 4 of the said Act and the apparent answer in view of the facts and circumstances of this case, since the impugned judgment has been passed by the Member (Technical), RCT, Guwahati without any authorisation to do so sitting singly under Section 4(4) of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Guwahati. The impugned judgment is liable to set aside on the ground of lack of jurisdiction on the part of Single Member (Technical), RCT, Guwahati. [6]The impugned judgment is, accordingly, set aside. [7]This case is remanded back to the Railway Claims Tribunal, Guwahati Bench with a direction to constitute a bench in terms of Section 4 of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Guwahati Act, 1987 and to dispose of the matter afresh after affording an opportunity of being heard to both the parties. [8]Since this is a very old pending case of the year 2013, the Railway Claims Tribunal, Guwahati Bench is directed to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible. [9]The Registry shall immediately send back he records of Original Application requisitioned in Page No.# 5/5 connection with this appeal, along with a copy of this order to the Railway Claims Tribunal, Guwahati Bench for compliance. [10] This appeal is, accordingly, disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant