Allowed

M/S.Krishna Stone Works v. Union of India And Ors.

Jharkhand HC10 Mar 2026WPC/3994/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner booked 17 wagons of stone chips from Barharwa to Siwan; consignment was delivered without objection or re-weighment, after which railways demanded Rs 2.74 lakh for alleged en-route excess load. The court held the case squarely covered by its earlier decision in C.W.J.C. No. 3191 of 2000 (R) and allowed the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Impugned demand for Rs 2,74,000 and odd on account of alleged excess load set aside; writ petition allowed.

M/S.Krishna Stone Works Vs Union of India And Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Jharkhand HC (2026)

¶1

2026:JHHC:6480

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

W.P. (C) No. 3994 of 2004

¶4

M/s Krishna Stone Works through its sole proprietor Ram Ratan Agarwala, son of Late Sant Lal Agarwala, resident of Station Road, Barharwa, P.O. & P.S. Barharwa, District Sahibganj

¶5

… … Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The Union of India through General Manager, Eastern Railway, 2 Fairly Place, Calcuta

¶8

The General Manager, Eastern Railway, 2 Fairly Place, Calcutta

¶9

The Chief Commercial Manager, Eastern Railway, Calcutta

¶10

The Divisional Commercial Manager, Eastern Railway, Malda, West Bengal

¶11

The Station Superintendent, Barharwa, Eastern Railway, P.O. & P.S. Barharwa, District Sahibganj

¶12

The Station Superintendent, Andal, Eastern Railway, P.O. & P.S. Andal

¶13

The General Manager, North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur, P.O. & P.S. Gorakhpur, District Gorakhpur, Uttar Pradesh

¶14

The Divisional Commercial Manager, North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur, P.O. & P.S. Gorakhpur, District Gorakhpur, Uttar Pradesh

¶15

The Station Superintendent, Siwan, North Eastern Railway, P.O. & P.S. Siwan, District Siwan, Bihar … … Respondents

¶16

¶17

CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

¶18

¶19

For the Appellant : Mr. Sushavan Bhowmik, Advocate : Mr. Shivam Anand Pathak, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Prashant Vidyarthy, Advocate : Mr. Romit Kumar, Advocate ---

¶20

14/10^th March 2026

¶21

1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶22

2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs: - “for issuance of an appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions for quashing Annexure-2 by which Rupees Two Lacs and 74 Thousand and odd demanded for excess load in BCN & BCNA wagon loaded with stone chips at Barharwa

¶23

¶24

2026:JHHC:6480

¶25

Eastern Railway enroute to Siwan Station, North Eastern Railway when behind the back of the petitioner the aforesaid wagons numbering 17 were weighed through Wayment Bridge of the Railway at Andal (Eastern Railway) when it was found in excess load as indicated in the Wayment Chart and for this an amount of Rupees 2 lacs, 74 thousand and some odd was demanded for payment by the writ petition after delivery of the goods to the consignee at Siwan Station without any objection. So far as the payment demanded for excess load was not calculated in presence of the writ petitioner of his nominee:

¶26

And/Or

¶27

To issue any other appropriate writ(s), order(s), direction(s) for doing conscionable and equitable justice.”

¶28

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that on 01.01.2004, the petitioner had booked 17 wagons of stone chips from Barharwa Railway Station (Eastern Railway) to Siwan Railway Station (North Eastern Railway) under R.R. Nos. 092665 & 092666 and the said wagons formed part of a 41 wagon rack belonging to multiple consignors. The consignment reached its destination and was delivered to the petitioner on 09.01.2004 without any objection, re-weighment, or reservation by the railway authorities at the time of delivery. However, subsequently railway authority issued demand notice dated 20.01.2004 alleging excess loading by referring to some weighment conducted en-route and such weighment was also without notice to the petitioner. The learned counsel submits that once the goods are delivered without any objection or reservation by the railway authorities, the railways are not permitted to raise a post-facto demand as it is not possible for counter checking the allegation by way of any re-weighment.

¶29

4. The learned counsel has referred to the judgment passed by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 3191 of 2000 (R) (Jyoti Enterprises vs. Union of India & Others) decided on 15.01.2003 and has submitted that various rules and Section 83 of the Railways Act has been duly considered by the Hon’ble Court. He has submitted that it has been clearly held that such a course of action is not permissible in law. He submits that the aforesaid

¶30

¶31

2026:JHHC:6480

¶32

judgment was subject-matter of consideration in L.P.A. No. 132 of 2003 and the said L.P.A. has been dismissed vide judgment dated 22.11.2012. He has referred to paragraph 20 to 28 of L.P.A. No. 132 of 2003.

¶33

5. Learned counsel for the respondents though has opposed the prayer, but does not dispute the fact that at the time of delivery of the consignment, no objection was raised from the side of the railway authorities and accordingly, on facts he is not able to distinguish the aforesaid two judgments, which have been cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶34

6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the admitted fact that the petitioner had booked 17 wagons of stone chips which formed a part of 41 wagon rack and was delivered to the petitioner without any objection and reservation by railways authorities and no demand and penalty was raised at the time of delivery and subsequently a demand was raised on 20.01.2004, this Court is of the considered view that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the ratio laid down by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 3191 of 2000 (R) which has been upheld in L.P.A. No. 132 of 2003 .

¶35

7. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed in terms of the judgment passed by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 3191 of 2000 (R).

¶36

8. Consequently, the impugned demand which relates to the petitioner is hereby set-aside.

¶37

9. Pending Interlocutory Application is hereby closed.

¶38

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

¶39

Dated: 10.03.2026 Uploaded On: Mukul/-

¶40

M/S.Krishna Stone Works v. Union of India And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Krishna Stone Works v. Union of India And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Latif Mian And Ors. Vs Hazrat Mian And Ors.

MD Raju @ Mohammad Raju Vs the State of Jharkhand

Dinesh Tirkey Alias Nitin Vs the State of Jharkhand

Binod Kewat Vs the State of Jharkhand

Subodh Singh Alias Sibodh Singh Vs the State of Jahrkhand

MD Faiyaz Khan Alias Faiyaz Ahmad Alias Faiyaz Khan Vs the State of Jharkhand