WP(C) 3122/2014 on the Following Ground – A) the Petitioner Is Trying to Mislead the Hon’Ble Court by Submitting Some Xeroxed Copy of Gate Passes

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

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

WP (C) No. 3122/2014

1. GLOBAL CARRYING INDIA & 6 ORS A PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN HAVING ITS OFFICE AT 14, RANKAWAT MARKET, A.T. ROAD, GUWAHATI, DIST- KAMRUP, ASSAM AND IS REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR SHRI VIKASH KUMAR BAJAJ, S/O RATAN KUMAR BAJAJ, R/O A.T. ROAD, GUWAHATI, DIST- KAMRUP, ASSAM. 2. MONOPOLY EXPRESS CARGO (MUMBAI) PVT. LTD. A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 AND HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 3 & 4, SAHARA CARGO ESTATE, GROUND FLOOR, NEAR TARUN BHARAT SOCIETY, J.B. NAGAR, ANDHERI (E), MUMBAI- 400099 AND ITS REGIONAL OFFICE AT OPPOSITE ASEB CONTROL OFFICE, 1ST FLOOR, KEDAR ROAD, GUWAHATI-781001, ASSAM AND IS REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY, SHRI MAUSAM SHARMA.

2. SONI KUSUM CARGO SERCICE, A PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN HAVING ITS OFFICE AT BHAGRATI TOWER, SRCB ROAD, SHOP NO.9, 1ST FLOOR, FANCY BAZAR, GUWAHATI-781001 IN THE DISTRICT OF KAMRUP, ASSAM AND ISREPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR RAMPALAT PRASAD. 3. SHRI RAMESH CHANDRA YADAV, S/O- SHRI HIRALAL YADAC, R/O- K.C. SEN ROAD, PALTAN BAZAR, GUWAHATI-8 IN THE DISTRICT OF KAMRUP, ASSAM. 4 SHRI RAJ KISHORE MISHRA, S/O- RATNESHWAR MISHRA, R/O- RUPAYAN ARCADE, S.S. ROAD, FANCY BAZAR, GUWAHATI IN THE DISTRICT OF KAMRUP, ASSAM. 5. SHRI KUNDAN KUMAR SHAH, S/O- SHRI SHANKAR SAHA, R/O- HOUSE NO. 24, KASTURBA NAGAR, ULUBARI IN THE DISTRICT

WP(C) 3122-5877/14 oral dated 07/05/15 Page 1 of 19

OF KAMRUP, ASSAM. 6. SHRI PRABHU NATH GUPTA, S/O- LT. RAM CHANDRA GUPTA, R/O- A.K. AZAD ROAD, REHABARI, GUWAHATI IN THE DISTRICT OF KAMRUP, ASSAM. ………..Petitioners

-Versus-

1. THE UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS, RAILWAY BOARD, RAILWAY BHAWAN, NEW DELHI. 2. THE CHIEF COMMERCIAL MANAGER, NORTH EAST FRONTIER RAILWAYS, MALIGAON, GUWAHATI, ASSAM. 3. M/S ESQUIRE EXPRESS & COURIER SERVICES, A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS OFFICE AT 31, G.T.ROAD (NORTH),GROUND FLOOR,HOWRAH,P.O. HOWRAH,P.S. GOLABARI, DISTRICT HOWRAH, WEST BENGAL, PIN-711101, (THE APPLICANT IS REPRESENTED BY ITS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, SHRI NITESH PANDEY, S/O SHRI CHANDESHWAR PANDEY, R/O K.C.SEN ROAD, PALTAN BAZAR, P.O. REHABARI, P.S. PALTAN BAZAR, GUWAHATI, DISTRICT-KAMRUP (M),ASSAM).

……….Respondents

For the petitioners : Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, Sr. Adv.

Mr. A. Chetia, Adv.

For the Respondents : Mr. B.N. Gogoi, SC, Rlys.

WP(C) 3122-5877/14 oral dated 07/05/15 Page 2 of 19

WP (C) No. 5877/2014

1. M/S ESQUIRE EXPRESS & COURIER SERVICE & 2 ORS A REGD. PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS OFFICE AT 31, G.T. ROAD NORTH, GROUND FLOOR, HOWRAH, P.O. & DIST- HOWRAH, WEST BENGAL-711101. 2. GEETA DEBI W/O DADAN PRASAD, A PARTNER OF THE PETITIONER NO.1 FIRM, R/O 31, G.T. ROAD NORTH, GROUND FLOOR, HOWRAH, P.O. & DIST- HOWRAH, WEST BENGAL-711101. 3. KRISHNA CHANDRA PRASAD S/O SHRI BACHCHA PRASAD, A PARTNER OF THE PETITIONER NO.1 FIRM, R/O 31, G.T. ROAD NORTH, GROUND FLOOR, HOWRAH, P.O. & DIST- HOWRAH, WEST BENGAL- 711101, ALL PETITIONERS ARE REP. BY THIER POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER NITESH PANDEY, S/O CHANDESHWAR PANDEY, R/O K.C. SEN ROAD, PALTAN BAZAR, P.O. REHABARI, P.S. PALTAN BAZAR, GUWAHATI, DIST- KAMRUP METRO, ASSAM. ……Petitioners -Versus-

1. THE UNION OF INDIA REP. BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, NORTHEAST FRONTIER RAILWAY, MALIGAON, GHY-11, ASSAM 2. THE RAILWAY BOARD REP. BY THE SECY., MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS, GOVT. OF INDIA, RAIL BHAWAN, NEW DELHI-1 3. THE DIRECTOR OF FREIGHT MARKETING

WP(C) 3122-5877/14 oral dated 07/05/15 Page 3 of 19

RAILWAY BOARD, GOVT. OF INDIA, RAIL BHAWAN, NEW DELHI-01 4. THE GENERAL MANAGER N.R.RAILWAY, MALIGAON, GHY-11, ASSAM 5. THE GENERAL MANAGER NORTHERN RAILWAY, BARODA HOUSE, NEW DELHI-1 6. THE CHIEF COMMERCIAL MANAGER N.F.RAILWAY, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT MALIGAON, GHY-11, ASSAM 7. THE CHIEF COMMERCIAL MANAGER (FM) N.F.RAILWAY, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT MALIGAON, GHY-11, ASSAM 8. THE CHIEF COMMERCIAL MANAGER (FM) NORTHERN RAILWAY, BARODA HOUSE, NEW DELHI-1 9. THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL COMMERCIAL MANAGER NORTHERN RAILWAY, BARODA HOUSE, NEW DELHI-1 10. THE CHIEF PARCEL SUPERVISOR N.F. RAILWAY, NEW GUWAHATI, ASSAM, GHY- 21 11. THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL COMMERCIAL MANAGER LUMDING DIVISION, N.F.RAILWAY, NAGAON, PIN-782447. …… Respondents

For the petitioners : Mr. D. Das, Sr. Adv. Mr. G. Alom, Adv.

For the Respondents : Mr. B.N. Gogoi, SC, Rlys.

WP(C) 3122-5877/14 oral dated 07/05/15 Page 4 of 19

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA

Date of hearing & Judgement: 07/05/2015

JUDGEMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)

1. The petitioners involved in WP(C) No. 3122/2014, engaged in the business of good carrier service are aggrieved by the decision of the respondent Railways to impose restrictions of piecemeal Demand VP

Book and movement from / to Guwahati (Ghy) and Kamakhya (KYQ)

Station with immediate effect for 60 days due to traffic block of Pit Line

No. 3, granted w.e.f. 09/06/2014 and consequential yard congestion. In this connection, the petitioners have assailed the Annexure-II order dated 09/06/2014 by which a further decision was conveyed to deal with all piecemeal Demand VPs and Leased VPs at New Guwahati (NGC) instead of Guwahati and Kamakhya. According to the petitioners, no such restrictions could have been imposed, more particularly when others are being allowed Demand VP booking and movement without any restrictions. In this connection, the petitioners have specifically referred to the case of the petitioners involved in the other writ petition, namely

WP(C) No. 5877/2014, who is also party respondent in WP(C) No.

3122/2014. When on the basis of the said order dated 09/06/2014,

WP(C) 3122-5877/14 oral dated 07/05/15 Page 5 of 19 restriction was sought to be imposed on the petitioner in WP(C) No.

5877/2014 inspite of the work order entrusted to it permitting to use

Guwahati Railway Station as intermediate station towards movement of goods. On the basis of the interim order passed in the said writ petition, the petitioner involved therein is permitted to make use of the Guwahati

Railway Station as intermediate station. In this connection, the petitioner has referred to Annexure-5 Revised Time Table dated

16/12/2013 applicable only at night time for limited duration.

2. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents in WP(C) No.

3122/2014, it has been stated that the particular restriction had to be imposed on the basis of the Engineering Branch recommendation for traffic block for repairing of washing Pit Line No. 3 at Guwahati yard.

According to the respondents, such restrictions was required keeping in mind the safety aspect because the Pit Line was working for several years without any maintenance. Accordingly, the impugned order dated

09/06/2014 had to be issued. The affidavit further states about the congestion in the Guwahati Railway Station. As regards the claim of the petitioners that the respondents are permitting loading and unloading in respect of other brake vans, the stand of the respondents is that the

PCET (Parcel Cargo Express Train) is a separate segment of parcel which are operated by Indian Railways. They are covered by separate policy of the Government. PCET is full length train with position of 20 + 1 and not like the circle Demand VPH. In PCET shunting is not required but in every

WP(C) 3122-5877/14 oral dated 07/05/15 Page 6 of 19 demand VPH more than 4 times shunting in per VPH is required. Thus, according to the respondents, there cannot be any comparison between the demand VP and PCET trains.

3. As stated in the affidavit, Railway parcel have 3 segments of traffic, namely, (i) Parcel Cargo Express trains (ii) SLRs and AGCs leasing and through Railway book and (iii) Lease the VPH and demand VPH. The petitioners parcel traffic comes under category (iii) (Demand VPH). As further stated in the affidavit, SLRs and AGCs do not require shunting and normally loading and unloading is done during stoppage of train times at platforms.

4. In terms of the orders passed in this proceeding, the respondent

Railways have filed another affidavit in MC 3466/2014 filed by the petitioners involved in WP(C) No.3122/2014. In the said affidavit filed on

13/02/2015 dealing with the plea of the petitioners that some others are being allowed loading/unloading at Guwahati Railway Station and there has been discrimination, it has been stated thus :-

“13. That with regard to the statements made in paragraph No. 12, the deponent begs to state that the petitioner is trying to mislead the Hon’ble Court by submitting some Xeroxed copy of gate passes. On verification, it is found that these gate passes are not related to any piecemeal demand VPU. However, railway can’t deprive the bonafied passengers for booking luggage on the same train through SLR or Guard Cabin/brakevan. The available space of SLR/Brake

WP(C) 3122-5877/14 oral dated 07/05/15 Page 7 of 19

van/guard cabin is also utilized for carrying parcels booked by common citizens. The discrimination towards the railway demand VPU users, as alleged is not correct and it is a misleading effort. Railway authority has not allowed any trader to book demand VPU to and from Guwahati railway/ Kamakhya station since 09/06/2014 without any discrimination. 14. That with regard to the statements made in paragraphs no.13 and 14, the deponent begs to state that the petitioner is trying to mislead the Hon’ble Court by submitting some Xeroxed copy of gate passes. On verification, it is found that these gate passes are not related to any piecemeal demand VPU. Railway can’t deprive the bonafied passengers for booking luggage on the same train through SLR or Guard Cabin/brake van. The available space is also utilized for carrying parcels booked by common citizens. The discrimination towards the railway demand VPU users, as alleged is not correct and it is a misleading effort. Railway authority has not allowed any trader to book demand VPU to and from Guwahati railway/ Kamakhya station since 09/06/2014. That in regarding extending the unloading facility at Guwahati Station for a Parcel Cargo Express Train, the order passed by Hon’ble High Court Gauhati dated 17/11/2014 in WP(C) 5877/2014 wherein it was instructed that “in the interim, having regard to the revised route and timing for running of the parcel cargo express train and the en-route stations mentioned in the schedule, the Railways will not obstruct unloading of

WP(C) 3122-5877/14 oral dated 07/05/15 Page 8 of 19

goods within the haltage time, in the en-route stations” may be mentioned. That, it is also found that the annexure VII attached by the petitioners are not related to piecemeal demand VPH/VPU. The gate pass No. 636444 was issued to Shree Shyam which was coming by SLR of Train No. 15910 UP (LGH to GHY), Gate pass No. 636443 was issued to Rampal/Anil Bajaria for the parcels transported by SLR of train 15910 UP (from LGH to GHY). A Gate pass No. 636975 was issued to City Link service for transporting parcels by SLR of train 5904 up (Chandigarh to GHY). V. Balraj was issued gate pass no. 636463 for parcels coming from KUR/Secunderabad by SLR /Train No. 12513 UP. Gate pass no. 535645 and 636646 were issued to On Line Logistics for parcels coming by SLR/Train 14056up (Delhi to GHY) & train 12506 (ANVT to GHY) respectively. On 07/12/2014, gate pass no. 637324 was issued to SRC Cargo Movers for parcels coming by SLR/train 15929 (Chennai to GHY). Gate pass No. 537322 was issued to Excellent Cargo Movers, SSPS & Shakti parcel service for parcels coming by Guard Cabi/SLR of train no. 15657 UP (SDAH to GHY). The petitioners can also book its parcels availing the normal railway parcel services. 16. That with regard to the statements made in paragraphs no. 16, the deponent begs to state that as explained in above paras, the discrimination towards the railway demand VPU users, as alleged is not correct and it is a misleading effort. Railway authority has not allowed any trader to book demand VPU to and from

WP(C) 3122-5877/14 oral dated 07/05/15 Page 9 of 19

Guwahati and Kamakhya station since 09/06/2014. Therefore the Hon’ble Court is prayed to dismiss the Misc. Case 3466/2014 along with WP(C) 3122/2014 on the following ground – A) The petitioner is trying to mislead the Hon’ble Court by submitting some Xeroxed copy of gate passes. On verification, it is found that these gate passes are not related to any piecemeal demand VPU. B) On 17/11/2014, the Gauahti High Court had passed an order in WP(C) 5877/2014 that “in the interim, having regard to the revised route and timing for running of the parcel cargo express train and the en- route stations mentioned in the schedule, the Railways will not obstruct unloading of goods within the haltage time, in the en-route stations”. So, the PCET was allowed to unload its consignment at Guwahati station. Thus the Hon’ble Court was rightly convinced that the leased PCET and demand basis piecemeal VPU are quite different from demand VPU. It is also worth mentioning that the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court had also passed an order on 16/12/2014 in MC 2203/2014 that M/s. Esquire Express & Courier Services “is a registered leaseholder of parcel van in the parcel cargo express train and they appear to have legitimate interest in this case, where the writ petitioner operate a parcel van on demand basis. Therefore after considering the submission made by the learned counsel, the impleadment prayer of M/s. Esquire Express & Courier Services is allowed and they

WP(C) 3122-5877/14 oral dated 07/05/15 Page 10 of 19

are added as respondent No. 4 in WPC(C) No. 3122/2014”. C) A normal passenger/coaching train is consist of Engine + GSLR + GS (general second class) + WGACCW (AC 2tier) + WGACCN (AC 3tier) + WGSCN (sleeper berth) + GS (general second class) + GSLRD/GSLR. Here SLR (second class luggage/parcel van and Guard Van) or GSLR or GSLRD is a must for safe running of a train as it accommodates the Guard of the Train. This coach (primarily meant for Guard) can accommodate 8 tonnes of parcel and luggage (3 tonn in two parts) and additional 1 tonn with the Guard. Luggage of bonafied passengers, Parcels booked by common people, petty traders etc are transported by utilizing this space. The first SLR is used by the Guard when the train is reversed. The space available with these Guard’s coach/SLR is open to all and the petitioners can easily and equally avail this service as per extant rule like other rail users. D) There is no involvement of multiple shunting in case of these SLR and intermediate stoppage of Parcel Cargo Express Train. On the other hand, demand VPUs are not same in terms of rules, rates, operational procedures etc. E) As explained above, the discrimination towards the railway demand VPU users as alleged is not correct and it is misleading effort. Railway authority has not allowed any trader to book demand VPU to and from Guwahati railway/Kamakhya station since 09/06/2014.”

WP(C) 3122-5877/14 oral dated 07/05/15 Page 11 of 19

5. When the matter was last taken up on 29/04/2015, although not recorded in the order passed on that day, but Mr. B.N. Gogoi, learned

Standing Counsel, Railways was requested to obtain instruction regarding the final stand of the respondents in the matter. Today, he has produced the written instruction furnished to him vide letter dated 04/05/2015 of the Divisional Commercial Manager (TC), Lumding, N.F. Railway. Along with the said letter, the copy of the letter dated 02/05/2015 addressed to Dy. CCM/TC/LMG by the DRM (O)/LMG, conveying the decision of the railways have also been enclosed. For a ready reference, the said letter dated 02/05/2015 is quoted below :-

“N.F. Railway

Office of the DRM/(O)/LMG

No. LD/Optg/123/Parcel Van/TD Date 02.05.15

DCM/TC/LMG Sub : Misc. Case No. 3466/2014 in Writ Petition © No. 3122/2014 for Guwahati High Court filed by M/S Global Carrying India. Ref : Your letter No. C/442/SLR-Leasing/Misc/10 dated 01.05.15.

In reference of above, the issue has been examined and our remarks are as under :

(i) The future strategy/plan for imposition of restriction on handling of piece meal demand VPU

WP(C) 3122-5877/14 oral dated 07/05/15 Page 12 of 19

at GHY and KYQ in future in view of yard congestion/operational constrains. The need for further restriction may also be explained. Guwahati Station has limited capacity for handling mail/express and passenger trains. There are infrastructural bottlenecks for handling such trains either due to limited platforms or due to platform of adequate length. There are limited facilities to stable coaches in the yard, and any shunting in the yard affect the running of other trains. The handling of demand VPUs require adequate stabling space in the yard, multiple shunting and slots in the Pit Lines for examination. These are not available all the time. Handing of demand VPUs at Guwahati is done at the cost of punctual running of mail/express trains from Guwahati Station. Moreover, more trains are being introduced from Guwahati and the pressure of handling trains as per schedule is immense. Guwahati is the gateway to other north eastern states and as the Railways has undertaken a large number of works to connect each and every state by rail, there will be increasing requirement of connecting Guwahati with all such states. At KYQ station, there are 2 parcel siding having capacity of 3 & 2 coaches, placement and withdrawal of VPUs entail frequent shunting. Parcel siding connected with L/no. 6, works on triple hand plunger key lock point operation system. To operate the point the key of the point

WP(C) 3122-5877/14 oral dated 07/05/15 Page 13 of 19

has to be brought from RRI Cabin KYQ, which prove to be time consuming for placement of VPU and hampers through train movements. The other parcel siding located near the sick line connected with the lead of sick line no. 1 of KYQ coaching yard is situated in gradients of 01 in 260. All activities of shunting are done will full pressure. KYQ is a four line platform station where number of originating/terminating trains is increasing year by year and almost all through trains have scheduled stoppage at this station. VP handling is likely to create station congestion. The need of piecemeal demand VPU parcel traffic for the northeast cannot be ignored. They can be conveniently handled at New Guwahati, located only 3 km away from Guwahati, with adequate infrastructure. It the entire parcel traffic can be handled at NGC, unnecessary shunting will be avoided and punctuality of trains at Guwahati would be maintained and improved and more trains can be accommodated from Guwahati with existing infrastructure. In the light of the above, Railway/Division is convinced (as future/plan) to continue with restriction of VP handling at GHY and KYQ and shift it to NGC as it is currently done now. (i) Is Railway considering allowing handling of demand VPU at GHY after completion of repair works at PIT lines ? Then, when it will be allowed ?

WP(C) 3122-5877/14 oral dated 07/05/15 Page 14 of 19

No, the Railway/Division has no plan to allow handling of demand VPU at GHY. It can be handled conveniently at NGC as it is currently done now. It is required to be done in larger public interest as VP handling at GHY and KYQ will certainly affect smooth train operation and moreover, the platform will also remain occupied by the parcel packages causing inconvenience to the passengers. Cleanliness of the platform will also be adversely affected. Also please refer to Annexure no.1 attached with this letter for reference. Sd/- 02/05/15 AOM/Chg/LMG For- DRM/(O)/LMG”

6. In WP(C) No. 5877/2014, the petitioner has questioned the action of the respondents to bring the petitioner within the purview of the impugned restrictions. According to the petitioner, they having been allotted with the particular work order requiring them to make use of the Guwahati Railway Station as intermediate station, there could not have been enlargement of the impugned order of restriction to the petitioner as well. As noted above, the petitioner has been allowed to make use of the Guwahati Railway Station as en-route station for the purpose of execution of the work order allotted in its favour by the

Railways. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, the said stand of the petitioners has been accepted with the following statement :-

WP(C) 3122-5877/14 oral dated 07/05/15 Page 15 of 19

“………… M/s. Esquire Express & Courier Services is running a Parcel Cargo Express train from New Guwahati – Chitpur – Patel Nagar on round trip basis as per provision of Freight Marketing Circular No. 02 of 2007 which is quite different from demand VPU. Being the highest bidder in the tender for Parcel Cargo Express train, the offer was given to this party. An agreement was executed between M/s esquire Express & Courier Express train for a period of three years. As per provision of agreement and Freight Marketing Circular No. 02 of 2007, the leaseholder is being allowed to avail Guwahati Station as intermediate station to unload/load its some parcel wagon at Guwahati station as intermediate station as per agreement and Freight Marketing Circular No. 02 of 2007. To avoid yard congestion and inconvenience to passengers, Railway is allowing them to unload/load their consignment during night period only (the revised timing and route shows the fact). There is no multiple shunting is involved in case of Parcel Cargo Express Train ; multiple shunting/attachment-detachment of VPU lowers the handling capacity of a station. On the other hand, demand VPUs are not same in terms of rules, rates, operational procedure etc; involvement of multiple shunting/process of attachment-detachment leads to yard congestion which have direct adverse impact on smooth running of passenger train.

However, LMG division had to stop intermediate stoppage at Guwahati (though it was against the provision of Freight Marketing Circular No. 02 of 2007)

WP(C) 3122-5877/14 oral dated 07/05/15 Page 16 of 19

for the Parcel Cargo Express Train in view of WP(C) No. 3122 of 2014. But on 17/11/2014, the Gauhati High Court had passed an order in WP(C) 5877/2014 that “in the interim, having regard to the revised route and timing for running of the parcel cargo express train and the en-rou9te stations mentioned in the schedule, the Railways will not obstruct unloading of goods within the haltage time, in the en-route stations”

So the PCET was allowed to unload its consignment at Guwahati Station.

That, it is also worth mentioning that the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court had passed an order on 16/12/2014 in MC 2203/2014 that M/s. Esquire Express & Courier Services “is a registered leaseholder of parcel van in the parcel cargo express train and they appear to have a legitimate interest in this case, where the writ petitioner operate a parcel van on demand basis. Therefore are considering the submission made by the learned counsel, the impleadment prayer of M/s. Esquire Express & Courier Services is allowed and they are added as respondent No. 4 in WP(C) No. 3122/2014.”

7. Above apart, as stated earlier, the petitioner in WP(C) No.

5877/2014 is also covered by the circular No. 02/2007 of the Govt. of

India in the Ministry of Railways (Railway Board) in reference to which the Annexure-5 revised time-table dated 16/12/2013 has been issued by the N.F. Railway authority. The timing has been so arranged that the petitioner is permitted to make use of the station only during night hours

WP(C) 3122-5877/14 oral dated 07/05/15 Page 17 of 19 and the same has been done pursuant to the work order issued in its favour, duration of which is said to be for 3 years.

8. As to whether a particular Railway Station should be permitted to make use of for loading and unloading of parcel vans is a matter to be decided by the railways and this Court exercising its power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot issue any mandamus to act in a particular direction. In Viklad Coal Marchant,

Patiala and others Vs. Union of India and others reported in (1984) 1

SCC 619, tdhe Apex Court dealing with the plea of unreasonable restriction in stopping booking of coal in wagon load from wayside stations, held that consistent with the particular planning, if the

Railways had acted in the particular manner, the same cannot be said to be violative of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. In the instant case also, the projection made by the Railways is that the restriction has been imposed keeping in mind tdhe public safety and traffic congestion.

9. As submitted by Mr. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel, Railways, a final decision in the matter is to be arrived by the competent authority of the railways. as to whether the restriction imposed in respect of use of the railway station should be continued or not. That apart, as stated in the affidavits filed by the railways and also submitted by Mr. Gogoi,

New Guwahati Railway Station located at a distance of 3 km from

Guwahati Railway Station/available for the petitioners for loading and unloading of their goods. So far as the petitioners involved in WP(C) No./

WP(C) 3122-5877/14 oral dated 07/05/15 Page 18 of 19

5877/2014 is concerned, it is entirely on a different footing. As per the work order itself it is permitted to make use of the Guwahati Railway

Station as an intermediate station during night with restriction on hours of operation.

10. In view of the above, both the writ petitions are disposed of granting liberty to the Railways to take appropriate decision in the matter taking note of all the attending facts and circumstances and in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible. While doing so, the fact that the petitioner involved in WP(C) No.5877/2014 is in a different footing in view of the particular work order issued by none other than the railways permitting it to make use of Guwahati Railway station as intermediate station, shall be kept in mind.

11. Both the writ petitions are disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.

JUDGE

Sukhamay

WP(C) 3122-5877/14 oral dated 07/05/15 Page 19 of 19