IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Present :-

The Hon’ble Justice PARTHA SARATHI SEN WPA 21187 of 2012 Rameshwar Lal Agarwal .

-Vs-

Union of India & Ors.

For the Petitioner: Mr. Ram Anand Agarwala. Adv., Ms. Nibedita Pal, Adv., Mr. Ananda Gopal Mukherjee, Adv., Ms. Sonam Ray, Adv., Ms. Nasrin Khatoon, Adv.

For the respondents: Ms. Aparna Banerjee, Adv.

Hearing concluded on: 28.02.2025. Judgment on: 05.03.2025.

PARTHA SARATHI SEN, J. : –

1. The subject matter of the instant writ petition is the letter dated 13.01.2012 as issued by the respondent no.4/authority addressed to the writ petitioner whereby and whereunder the writ petitioner was communicated regarding rejection of the appeal as made by the writ petitioner for waiver of demurrage charges and wharfage charges.

2. For effective adjudication of the instant lis some facts leading to the filing of the instant writ petition are required to be discussed and those are dealt with hereinbelow in seriatim:-

i. On 05.03.2010 at about 17:05 hours one rake containing 90 containers of salt belonging to the writ petitioner was placed at Raniganj Goods Shed in DD I line.

ii. According to the writ petitioner in DD 1 line there was no room for unloading the said consignment and accordingly a letter of request dated 05.03.2010 was submitted with the Divisional Operating Manager, Eastern Railway, Assansol requesting him to place the said rake in DD II line for unloading the said consignment which according to the writ petitioner was not conceded to.

iii. Ultimately the entire consignment was unloaded from the said rake on 06.03.2010 and the process of unloading was completed on the said date at 20:04 hours.

iv. Thereafter the entire consignment was removed from the railway premises on 08.03.2010 at about 20:00 hours.

v. For the alleged delay in unloading the consignment and for removing the said consignment from the railway premises, the railway authority levied demurrage charges and wharfage charges upon the writ petitioner to the tune of Rs.67,500/-

and Rs.1,01,900/- respectively.

vi. The writ petitioner by issuing a letter dated 16.03.2010 addressed to the respondent no.4 requested for waiver of aforementioned demurrage charges and wharfage charges.

vii. On 23.03.2010 the respondent no.4 while replying to the letter dated 16.03.2010 asked the writ petitioner to deposit the said two charges for consideration of his appeal as per rule.

viii. On 03.06.2010 the writ petitioner made payment of the said two charges on protest and without prejudice to his right to recover the said two charges.

ix. On 13.08.2010 the respondent no.4/authority under cover of a memo informed the writ petitioner regarding grant of waiver to the extent of 50 per cent of the demurrage charges only.

x. On 31.08.2010 the writ petitioner filed a re-appeal petition with the respondent no.6 praying for complete waiver of the said two charges mentioned in the said petition of appeal.

xi. On 27.09.2010 the respondent no.4 under cover of a memo conveyed the writ petitioner that his re-appeal cannot be considered on the ground of late submission.

xii. The writ petitioner under cover of his letter dated 08.10.2010 conveyed to the respondent no.6 that the re-appeal petition as filed by the writ petitioner was very much within the time and thus requested the said respondent no.6 to decide the said re-appeal on merit and in accordance with law.

xiii. The respondent no.4 under cover of its memo dated

23.05.2011 conveyed the writ petitioner that his re-appeal for complete waiver of the aforementioned two charges was considered in all respect and the same was rejected having found no merit.

xiv. The aforementioned orders of rejection was assailed before this Hon’ble Court by the writ petitioner by filing WPA 1045 of 2011 wherein a co-ordinate bench while disposing the said writ petition was pleased to set aside the said orders of rejection with a direction to the respondent no.3 of the said writ petition to rehear