Writ of Mandamus cannot be issued to alter railway stoppage times or bypass alternative remedies for freight refunds.

The Petitioner entered into an Agreement dated 31.08.2022 with the Railway Authorities for leasing parcel space in Train No. 12520 (Kamakhya – Lokmanya Tilak Terminus) on a round-trip basis for five years

At the time of the Agreement, Kamakhya Station was either the originating or destination station. Subsequently, the train route was extended to Agartala, making Kamakhya an intermediate station

On 14.03.2024, the train stopped at Kamakhya for only four minutes, preventing the Petitioner from loading cargo despite having paid advance freight

The Petitioner sought a Mandamus for 45-60 minute halts, a waiver of charges for the Kamakhya-LTT route, and a refund of freight charges for dates when loading was impossible

1. Whether the Court can issue a Mandamus directing the Railway Authorities to provide specific halting times at intermediate stations

2. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to a refund of lease freight charges under the writ jurisdiction of the High Court for alleged service failures

Clause 8.22 mandates that leaseholders must complete loading/unloading within the scheduled stoppage time at intermediate stations and strictly prohibits train detention for such purposes

Clause 8.23, which provides a three-hour free time for loading/unloading, is applicable only when the station is an originating or destination terminal

The principle of "alternative and efficacious remedy," noting that disputes involving factual adjudications of railway claims fall under the jurisdiction of the Railway Claims Tribunal

The Court reasoned that since the train’s originating station shifted to Agartala, Kamakhya became an intermediate station, rendering Clause 8.23 (three-hour free time) inapplicable and activating Clause 8.22 (loading within scheduled stoppage)

The Court held that fixing train stoppage times requires technical expertise and interference by the judiciary would disrupt railway operations

Regarding the refund of freight charges, the Court observed that the Petitioner’s claims (detailed in paragraph 11 of the writ) involved contested facts and evidence-based inquiries. Such factual disputes cannot be resolved under Article 226 of the Constitution, as the Railway Claims Tribunal is the proper forum for such adjudications

The Court granted the Petitioner liberty to approach the Railway Claims Tribunal to seek a refund of payments under Clause 5.1 of the Agreement, clarifying that the dismissal of the writ would not prejudice such proceedings