High Courts, under Article 226, should exercise judicial restraint in technical operational matters like train scheduling and should not entertain writ petitions in commercial disputes involving complex factual controversies when specific, efficacious statutory alternative remedies are available.

JUDGMENT AND ORDER :

DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.

Heard Mr. A. R. Tahabildar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and Mr. K. Gogoi, the learned CGC appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 1 to 6.

2. The Petitioner has filed the instant writ petition seeking the following reliefs which are reproduced herein under:

“(i) Why a writ in the nature of Mandamus should not be issued directing the Respondents to provide adequate halting/stopping time of at least 45 minutes to one hour at Kamakhya (KYQ) station for Train No.12520 (now re-numbered as 15660) so as to enable the petitioner to load parcels in the Train No.12520 (now re-numbered as 15660) at the Kamakhya station.

(ii) Why a writ in the nature of Mandamus should not be issued directing the Respondents to stop collecting freight and lease charges for the leased Parcel Van in the Train No.12520 (now re-numbered as 15660) for the Kamakhya (KYQ) to Lokmanya Tilak Terminus (LTT) route.

(iii) Why a writ in the nature of Mandamus should not be issued directing the respondents to refund the entire amount of freight and lease charges already collected from the petitioner, when no loading was possible in the leased VP of the Train No.12520 (now re-numbered as 15660) as mentioned in Paragraph No. 3 and 11 of the writ petition and on subsequent dates, along with interest at a rate deemed fit by this Hon’ble Court.”

3. The brief facts of the instant case are that an Agreement was entered into by and between the Railway Authorities with the Petitioner for leasing of parcel space in parcel LVPH by Train No.12520-12519 Kamakhya – Lokmanya Tilak Terminus – Kamakhya AC Express, Ex. Kamakhya (KYQ) – Lokmanya Tilak Terminus (LTT) – Kamakhya (KYQ) on round trip basis for five years. The said Agreement was executed on 31.08.2022 and is valid till 30.08.2027.

4. Clause 4 of the said Agreement stipulates advance payment of lump sum leased freight. Clause 5 of the Agreement stipulates the adjustment in advance lump sum leased freight due to non-loading of the Parcel Van (LVPH). In terms with Clause 5.1, when the leased space is not made available by Railways due to unavoidable circumstances as mentioned in the said Clause, the Petitioner shall be exempted from payment of freight for that particular day(s) (non-loading) subject to verification of circumstances by multi- disciplinary team. It is also mentioned that if the freight is deposited in advance, it shall be adjusted against the next loading/payment. Further to that, in the circumstance, the freight cannot be adjusted, then the same shall be refunded.

5. Clause 8.22 and Clause 8.23 of the said Agreement are relevant and the same are reproduced herein under:

“8.22 Leaseholder shall complete loading/unloading operation from leased Parcel van within the schedule stoppage time of the train at intermediate station. Detention of train on account of loading, unloading of parcels in the leased parcel van at originating or intermediate or destination station, shall, in no case, be allowed.

8.23 Three hours free time from the time at which the Parcel Van/Vehicle is placed in position, shall be allowed for loading or unloading of parcels in case the leased Parcel Vans placed at separate terminal at originating and destination station.”

6. From a perusal of the above quoted Clauses, it would be seen that it is agreed to that the Petitioner who is the leaseholder shall complete loading/unloading operation from leased parcel van within the schedule stoppage time of the train at the intermediate station. It is further mentioned that the detention of train on account of loading, unloading of parcels in the leased parcel van at originating or intermediate or d