Writ Petition against Railway Punitive Charges is Inadmissible Due to Statutory Remedy Before Claims Tribunal

The petitioner, a cement company, transported clinker via railway from Salchapara to Falakata

Due to a technical failure at the scheduled weighbridge, weighment occurred at Dudhnoi, where overloading was detected

After load adjustments and a second weighment, the railway authorities alleged weight variations and issued demand notices totaling ₹39,01,515/- for punitive and detention charges

The petitioner was also restricted from removing materials due to non-payment

The petitioner challenged these demands and detention notices under Article 226 of the Constitution, alleging they were illegal and without jurisdiction

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable under Article 226 in light of the alternative statutory remedies available under the Railways Act, 1989 and the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987?

Section 36(c) of the Railways Act, 1989, which vests the Railway Claims Tribunal with jurisdiction to decide complaints regarding the levying of "unreasonable" charges by railway administrations

Section 13 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, defining the Tribunal's powers over claims for refunds of freight and compensation

Coordinate Bench precedents in M/s Sadguru Engineers and Allied Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India and M/s Satish Prasad v. Union of India, which established that disputes over penal/demurrage charges must be routed through the statutory Tribunal rather than the High Court's writ jurisdiction

The Court evaluated whether the impugned punitive and detention charges fell within the scope of the Railway Claims Tribunal. It noted that Section 36(c) of the Railways Act, 1989 specifically covers "any other charge which is unreasonable"

Following the reasoning in M/s Sadguru Engineers, the Court found that the petitioner’s grievance—challenging the legality and amount of the levied charges—fit squarely within the statutory framework designed for the Tribunal

The Court emphasized that judicial discipline requires following prior Coordinate Bench rulings which held that the Tribunal is the "adequate and efficacious" forum for such matters

Consequently, the Court determined that it should refrain from exercising its extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 when a specialized statutory remedy exists

The writ petition was dismissed, the interim order was recalled, and liberty was granted to the petitioner to approach the Railway Claims Tribunal for relief