JUDGMENT

1. The instant case has been taken up for consideration through the mode of Video conferencing in view of the prevailing situation on account of COVID 19 Pandemic, requiring social distancing.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Shri Gautam Kumar Kejriwal and the learned counsel for the Respondent- Railways, Shri Kumar Priya Ranjan, Advocate.

3. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the demurrage penalty imposed upon the petitioner to the tune of Rs. 5,60,700/-, by the respondent Goods Superintendent, Dauram Madhepura, East Central Railway, as also for quashing the letter dated 21.01.2020, issued by the respondent Divisional Railway Manager [Commercial] East Central Railway, Samastipur, whereby and whereunder the application of the petitioner for waiver of demurrage charges been rejected.

4. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner had booked consignment of cement bags with the railways, to be transported by Railway Wagons. The rake of 42 wagons, containing the cement consignment of the petitioner had arrived at the Dauram siding on 27.09.2019, however, the petitioner could not unload the cement bags from the wagons within the stipulated time frame and the cement bags could be unloaded only on 01.10.2019, after cessation of rains, resulting in levy of demurrage charges to the tune of Rs. 5,60,700/-. The petitioner, in terms of Clause-2 of the respondent- Railways' Rates Master Circular Demurrage-Waiver/ 2016, had paid the demurrage charges on 06.10.2019 and on the very same day had submitted waiver application before the Goods Superintendent, Dauram to be forwarded to the Divisional Railway Manager, Samastipur along with his recommendations. Thereafter, the respondent Goods Superintendent, Dauram on 06.10.2019 itself, had forwarded the application of the petitioner to the Divisional Railway Manager, Samastipur, along with his recommendation, which is reproduced herein below:-

5. The Divisional Railway Manager (Commercial), Samastipur, by the impugned letter dated 21.01.2020 has rejected the waiver application of the petitioner.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order dated 21.01.2020 on the very face of it smacks of non-application of mind and in fact, no reason whatsoever has been assigned as also the recommendations of the Goods Superintendent, Dauram, Madhepura, in favour of the petitioner, as aforesaid, has also not been considered by the learned Divisional Railway Manager resulting in the order dated 21.01.2020 being perverse and bad in the eyes of law.

7. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Whirlpool Corporation vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai & Ors., reported in (1998) 8 SCC 1, the alternative remedy of appeal would not operate as a bar and the present Writ Petition would still be maintainable in as much as the impugned Order dated 21.01.2020 has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice in as much as the Divisional Railway Manager (Commercial), Samastipur has not furnished any reason to reject the waiver application of the petitioner.

8. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent-Railways', Sri. Kumar Priya Ranjan, has submitted that the petitioner has the remedy of filing an appeal against the Order of rejection of his waiver application, as is stipulated in clause 3 of the Rates Master Circular Demurrage-Waiver/ 2016.

9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the materials on record and I find that the case as put forth by the petitioner regarding there being incessant rains resulting in the petitioner being impeded from unloading the cement bags from the wagons has not been disputed by the respondent railways in their counter affidavit, and moreover, the Goods Superintendent has also recommended for waiver of the demurrage charges as also has stated that the reasons furnished