##PAGE1##

Page No.# 1/5

GAHC010179152025

2026:GAU-AS:6615

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

Case No. : WP(C)/4899/2025

M/S SATISH PRASAD AND ANR

REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR MR SATISH PRASAD HAVING OFFICE

AT VISHWANATH APARTMENT, NEAR OJHA MARKET, DEVI MANDAP

ROAD, HESAL, RANCHI, JHARKHAND-834005

2: SATISH PRASAD

PROPRIETOR OF M/S SATISH PRASAD

SON OF LATE GANG PRASAD

HAVING PLACE OF BUSINESS AT VISHWANATH APARTMENT

NEAR OJHA MARKET

DEVI MANDAP ROAD

HESAL

RANCHI

JHARKHAND-83400

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR

REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS, RAILWAY

BOARD, RAILWAY BHAWAN, NEW DELHI

2:THE GENERAL MANAGER

N.F. RAILWAY

HAVING OFFICE AT MALIGAON

GUWAHATI

ASSAM-78101

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. D. Rathi, Advocate

For the Respondent(s) : Mr. K. Gogoi, CGC

Page No.# 2/5

BEFORE

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH

ORDER

Date : 13.05.2026

Heard Mr. D. Rathi, the learned counsel appearing on behalf

of the Petitioners and Mr. K. Gogoi, the learned CGC, appearing

on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

2. The Petitioners herein are aggrieved by the imposition of

penal demurrage charges to the tune of Rs.14,26,856/- which

the Petitioners had to pay and further terminal charges to the

tune of Rs.1,06,688/-.

3. It is the specific case of the Petitioners that the said

amounts which have been charged upon the Petitioners could

not have been done so as per law. The Petitioners therefore

have sought for appropriate directions for the refund of the said

amounts which the Petitioners were compelled to make

payment.

4. Mr. K. Gogoi, the learned CGC submitted that this Court may

not like to entertain the instant writ petition taking into account

that the Petitioners ought to have approached the Railway

Claims Tribunal inasmuch as the issue which is being sought to

be raised in the instant proceedings comes within the ambit of

Section 36(c) of the Railways Act, 1989.

Page No.# 3/5

5. In that regard, the learned CGC has referred to a judgment

of the learned Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of

M/S Sadguru Engineers and Allied Services Private Limited and

Another Vs. Union of India and 4 Others reported in 2025:GAU-

AS:1001. The learned CGC submitted that the issue which is

involved in the present proceedings is squarely covered by the

observations made by the learned Coordinate Bench of this

Court at Paragraph Nos. 27, 28, 29 and 30 of the said judgment.

The said paragraphs are reproduced herein below:

“27. Coming back to the remedy available under the law, it is to be taken

note that by the Act of Parliament, the Railway Tribunals Act, 1987 and

the Railways Act, 1989 have been enacted providing a remedy for

making complaints against the Railway Administration which may be

made before the Railway Claims Tribunal.

28. As noted above, the respondents authorities has failed to show that a

Penal/Higher Demurrage Charge has been demanded after wide publicity

and notice of 48 hours and the grievance is levying of charge which is

6th times of the normal demurrage charge which according to the

petitioner is arbitrary, in my view would fall under Section 36(c) of the

Railways Act, 1989 for which a complaint may be made to the Tribunal

under the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987.

29. In the considered view of this Court, the grievance raised of not adhering

to the Railway Circular dated 22/23.10.2008 of not providing 48 hours

notice and after wide publication and also on the ground of Covid-19

situation at the relevant point of time, when the curfew was imposed,

the same would be within the contours of the provisions of Section 36(c)

of the Railways Act, 1989, within the jurisdiction of the Railway Claims

Page No.# 4/5

Tribunal. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the view that the

petitioners have the remedy available under the law for their grievances.

30. In view of the foregoing discussions, in my considered view it would be

appropriate that the petitioners approach the remedy available under the

law. Accordingly, it is pr