G. Anupama Chakravarthy, J. – At the outset, it is relevant to mention here that a preliminary objection has been raised by the Learned counsel for the Railways that the matters have to be heard before the Division Bench as the petitioner have challenged Circulars of the Railway Board in the Writ petition. At this juncture, the Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that they have made alternative prayers in these cases and, therefore, they intend to withdraw the prayer of quashing of the Circulars. Accordingly, the Learned counsel for the petitioner was directed to make an endorsement in the Writ petition, in which Circulars have been challenged, so as to enable this Court to further proceed in the matters. In view of the aforesaid, the petitioner has withdrawn the reliefs (a) and (b) of the Writ petition.

2. The petitioner has filed the instant application for the following reliefs: –

“(c) For issuance of a Writ in the nature of mandamus as directing respondents specially the respondent number 2 to 6 to refund the difference of penal demurrage charges recoverable from the petitioner as per the impugned rate Circular dated 18.03.2019 and 29.03.2019 to that recoverable in terms ECR/CRM/FMS/02/GS/Misc. of Circular number dated 10.09.2018 (hereinafter referred to as the Circular dated 10.09.2018 for short) issued by the Respondent Principal Chief Commercial Manager on account of the impugned rate Circular dated 18.03.2019 and 29.03.2019 being not applicable to the case of the petitioner or In The Alternative;

(d) For holding and a declaration that the impugned rate Circular dated 18.03.2019 as well as the Circular dated 29.03.2019 would be prospective in operation and would not apply retrospectively to the indent registered on or before expiration of 48 hours of publication of the said Circulars in the respective divisions;

(e) For holding and a declaration that the impugned rate Circular dated 18.03.2019 as well as the Circular dated 29.03.2019 being penal in nature and carrying the effect of enhancement of penal consequences ought to have preceded by due notice upon the parties bound to be affected by such variation/alteration in the penal consequences and as such both the Circulars suffers from violation of principles of natural justice:

(f) For holding and a declaration that the impugned Circular dated 29.03.2019 is not sustainable for another vital and relevant reason of there being no registration of indent having taken place between 18.03.2019 till 29.03.2019 inviting application of such harsher conditions of complete reduction of stacking period coupled with imposition of extreme penal demurrage charges of 6 times the normal charges;

(g) For holding and a declaration that the petitioner having registered indent before the impugned rate Circular dated 18.03.2019 was issued and published the case of the petitioner would be governed and guided by the Circular number ECR/CRM/FMS/02/GS/Misc. dated 10.09.2018 as the petitioner having relied upon the said Circular consisting of all parameters of penal consequences in case of no loading of wagons had registered indent with the respondent East Central Railway;

(h) For holding and a declaration that the impugned Circulars dated 18.03.2019 and 29.03.2019 cannot be made retroactive in operation and cannot apply against the indent registered by the petitioner much prior to the issuance and publication of the said impugned Circulars;

(i) For grant of any other relief or reliefs to which the petitioner is found entitled in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

3. The key facts derived from the petition are that the petitioner is a proprietorship firm registered under the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 and engaged in trading of foodgrains. The petitioner purchases maize in bulk from Bihar and supplies it to various consumers across the country. To facilitate this, the stock is transported from different purchase points in Bihar to the desired destinations via railway rakes consisting