IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION

APPELLATE SIDE

Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Rai Chattopadhyay

WPA 8707 of 2021

Sharuan Kumar

Vs.

Union of India & Ors.

For the Petitioner : Mr. Saptarshi Ray

: Mr. Siddhartha Ray

: Ms. Kakali Das Chakraborty

For the UOI : Mr. Sanajit Kr. Ghosh

: Ms. Mary Datta

Judgment on : 10.06.2026

Uploaded on : 10.06.2026

Rai Chattopadhyay, J. :-

1. The writ petitioner who is the sole proprietor of the firm

namely M/s Maa Netula Cargo Service, has filed the instant

case to challenge the impugned order dated March 5, 2021, of

the respondent authority to seek setting aside thereof. His

other prayers are that the respondent may be directed to

refund him a total sum of Rs.2,85,166/- which includes the

punitive charges to the tune of Rs.2,17,089/- and demurrage

charges of Rs.68,077/-.

2. The respondent Railway Authority has held in the impugned

order dated March 5, 2021, inter alia that re-weighment sheet

dated February 5, 2020 , has sufficiently proved the

Page 2 of 20

consignment unloaded from the SRL No. 14703 (FSRL -1) of

train No. 12345 Saraighat Express EX.HWH to GHY, to be of

excess weight to the tune of 8892 Kilograms. Accordingly, it

attracted the penal charges. Also, that the process of re-

weighment was done in due observance of the prescribed

procedure, in presence of the petitioner‟s representative and

the vigilance team of the Railway Board, all of whom

subscribed their signatures on the re-weighment sheet dated

February 5, 2020.

3. It has also been mentioned in the said impugned order that as

per legal opinion of LO/LMG the vigilance team found over

weight on the basis of total 271 packages [87 +184

(perishable)], in contrast to 301 packages mentioned in the

manifest of the lease-holder/writ petitioner. That the petitioner

did not dispute the total number of 271 packages recovered.

Therefore, the said respondent authority opined that the

petitioner, as the operator, did not disclose the actual number

of packets and its respective weights, in their manifest. The

writ petitioner has received back the 271 packets including

those containing the perishable goods, which were not

declared in the manifest and weighed earlier. As such the

petitioner cannot now deny existence of the additional goods

not disclosed in the manifest and not weighed earlier. Hence,

the respondent Authority has come to the finding in the said

impugned order that punitive charges are applicable against

the writ petitioner and cannot be refunded.

4. In this regard the respondent Authority has relied on an order

of this Court dated September 4, 2020, in the writ petition No.

W.P. 3165 (w) of 2020, in which the Court has directed that

Page 3 of 20

“……the petitioner is permitted to have re-weighment done of the

goods that the petitioner did not take delivery of under section

79 of the Act of 1989 upon payment of all punitive, haulage and

demurrage charges prior the weighment being made. The

payment so made will be abide by the result of the weighment.

The parties are at liberty to initiative proceedings with regard

thereto……..”.

5. The writ petitioner is the operator/lease-holder with the

Eastern Railway at Howrah, operating in loading and

unloading over parcel space of 5 tons per trip, in break -

van/parcel-van in train No. 12345 UP Saraighat Express from

Howrah to Gauhati, for a contract period of 5 years from

January 18, 2017 to January 17, 2022.

6. The petitioner in usual course of business loaded mixed goods

parcel of 3990 Kilograms on February 4, 2020, upon paying

advance freight charges at Howrah against valid money

receipt. Upon completion of loading a railway manifest was

prepared duly countersigned by the Chief Parcel Supervisor.

Front SRL-1 in which the goods were loaded was duly weighed

at in-motion weigh bridge at Howrah and upon find ing the

weight in order, the SRL was dispatched for the destination.

7. On the following day, on February 5, 2020, before arrival at

the destination station the respondent Railway has conducted

an in-motion weighment of the said Front SRL -1, allegedly

without any notice to the writ petitioner and in absence of any

representative of him, to find the Front SRL-1 to be overloaded

by 4892 Kilograms [weight as per manifest 3940 Kgs, weight

found on re-weighment 8892 Kgs]. Immediately the petitioner

Page 4 of 20

was notified though allegedly he has never been handed over

with the formal re-weighment slip and the FSLR -1 was

detached from the train and kept in Gauhati Station in sealed

condition. The petitioner raised objection and demanded re-

weighment vide his representation dated February 5, 2020,

but to no avail. Instead, the petitioner was handed over with

the demand of punitive charges to the tune of Rs. 2,17,889/-

for overloading of 4 tons, as evident from the document

annexed at page.58 of the writ petition.

8. In demand of re-weighment as per the provision under section-

79 of the Railways Act, 1989, the present petitioner filed his

earlier writ petition being No. W.P.No. 3165 (w) of 2020. The

same was disposed of vide an order dated September 4, 2020,

permitting re-weighment in terms of section-79 of the 1989

Act, upon payment of all punitive, haulage and demurrage

charges prior to weighment being done, subject to result of

weighment, with liberty granted to the parties to initiate

proceedings with regard thereto [specific portion of the order is

quoted above].

9. Pursuant to the said order the petitioner deposited a total sum

of Rs. 2,85,166/-. Re-weighment of consignment in terms of

the Court‟s order was done by the respondent authority on

December 24, 2020 . The petitioner says that upon re-

weighment and as per the Joint Re -weighment Report, the

consignment of the petitioner, which was withheld on the

allegation of overloading, was found to be within tolerable

limits and its overall weight to be within permissible limit as

mentioned in the railway manifest. The petitioner has stated

further that the respondent Authority has not taken any steps

Page 5 of 20

as regards the consignment containing perishable goods i n

terms of power vested in it by virtue of the statutory provision

like to sell goods for realisation of charges or its power of lien

as envisaged in section-83 of the Act of 1989; rather it has

released those materials to the petitioner without any

objection. Also, that in the Joint Re-weighment Report, the

Authority has failed to arrive at any gross weight of the total

consignment. On manual re-weighment of 87 hard parcels, the

same weighed 566.450 Kilograms, that is, 0.5 tonne

(approximately). Considering the gross weight of total

consignment as shown and certified in the railway manifest,

that is, 3990 Kilograms, and the weight of hard parcels arrived

at the time of re -weighment and upon mathematical

calculation the weight of perishable goods comes to be 3434

Kilograms, which is within the permissible and tolerable limit.

The petitioner has stated that the Joint Re-weighment Report

has clearly depicted that 184 packets of perishable items had

not been weighed before its delivery to the petitioner.

10. Thus, the petitioner has claimed that the result of re -

weighment negated the allegation of the Authority of

overloading of the petitioner‟s consignment; rather established

his contention and declaration made in the railway manifest.

Hence, the petitioner has submitted his written representation

dated January 27, 2021, seeking refund of the punitive charge

and demurrage to the tune of Rs. 2,85,166/-, deposited by him

earlier, but to no avail. Hence, he has filed the instant writ

petition for redress of his grievance.

11. Mr. Saptarshi Ray, learned advocate has represented the

petitioner. His first argument is that the entire proceeding

Page 6 of 20

undertaken by the respondent Authority was in breach of the

applicable rules as contained in the Freight Marketing Circular

No. 06 of 2014 and that No. 07 of 2021 as well. He submits

that Clause-27 of 2014 Circular as to be followed to impose

punitive charges for overloading in parcel vans. He has

specifically relied on Clause-27.8 as enumerated therein to say

that the respondent Authority as per mandate to follow the

proceeding as laid down therein. According to him no such

proceeding has been followed by the respondent Authority in

due course. According to him, this happens to be the first

breach of rules by the respondent Authority upon which the

said Authority is not entitled to make any allegation of

overloading against the writ petitioner. For the benefit of

discussion led the provision under Clause-27.8 of the Freight

Marketing Circular No. 06 of 2014, be quoted, as follows:

“27.8 Efforts should be made to conduct weighment in

presence of the concerned leaseholder or his

representative. The report of weighment result should be

countersigned by the CPS. The party concerned will also

countersign on the relevant record.

In case of refusal by party to counter-sign, then weighment

clerk, TXR or RPF staff and CPS of the station will sign the

weighment statement and the same will be binding on the

both parties.”

12. According to the writ petitioner further breach of rules

committed by the respondent Authority is with regard to

Clause-1.5 of the Freight Marketing Circular No. 07 of 2021,

which is as follows:

“1.5. If weighment of SLR/VP has been done at the

originating station or at any intermediate station, and is

found to be overloaded at the point of detection, and the

Page 7 of 20

consignor/consignee/leaseholder will have to take delivery

of this part consignment on „as is where basis is‟ basis at the

point of detection of overloading. Railway shall not be

responsible for any damage, deterioration or loss to the

excess consignment due to off-loading of parcels. The

entire cost of offloading shall be borne by the

consignor/consignee or leaseholder. However, no punitive

charges shall be levied, if the customer carries out load

adjustment at the Originating Point. Overloading of parcels,

beyond the permissible limit, shall in no case, be allowed to

be carried in the vehicle.”

13. It has been submitted that in case of the writ petitioner, at the

time of loading of the consignment no deviation was found by

the certifying authority, as to the weight of consignment

disclosed by the petitioner in the railway manifest. Therefore,

there was no question of offloading extra weight at the time of

detection at the originating station, as envisaged in the said

rule. On the contrary, it is the contention of the petitioner that

due to mechanical fault at the in-motion weigh bridge before

approaching the destination station, faulty weighment result

surfaced. It is submitted further that such weighment of

consignment before approaching the destination station has

been done violating the petitioner‟s right to be represented at

the time of weighment as he has not been notified before such

weighment was done. It is submitted that the same has

resulted into due compliance with the principles of natural

justice in case of the writ petitioner.

14. With reference to provisions of „Unloading and Reweighment of

Inward Goods‟ as envisaged in Chapter XVII of the Commercial

Manual, particularly Clauses- 1718, 1719,1721 and 1722, to

submit that clause violation of these provisions in the

functioning of the respondent Authority, should render its

Page 8 of 20

function as unlawful and unsustainable and hence not to

warrant any penal action or imposition of penal charges

against the petitioner due to any alleged violation. The said

clauses be mentioned as hereinbelow:

“1718. Unloading of goods. – Each packages, as it is

unloaded, should be carefully examined to see that it is

correctly marked for the station and that it is in good

condition, i.e., it is not damaged, deficient or pilfered.

Adequate care must be taken in unloading the packages to

prevent breakage and damage.

1719. The Station Master should personally supervise

unloading of specially valuable goods such as articles

mentioned in Part I of Schedule II of the Railways (Extent of

Monetary Liability and Prescription of Percentage charge)

Rules, 1990 on which percentage charges on value have been

paid.

1721. The result of the check must be recorded in the summary

and in the tally book and signed by the Station Master and the

representatives of the Railway Protection Force and

Government Railway Police, in whose presence the contents of

the wagon were checked. The exact condition of the package,

bag or bale, sound, damaged or pilferred, should be recorded

along with the result of reweighment. The whole consignment

of which the package, bag or bale in question forms a part,

should also be re-weighed and result recorded.

1722. Stacking and marking of goods after being unloaded. –

Each consignment must be separately stacked as it is unloaded

and must be either be marked, or have a label attached to one

of the uppermost packages, showing the date of unloading,

number of wagons from which unloaded and the total number

of the packages of the consignment unloaded.”

15. Furthermore, it has been contended that in case of any false

declaration made or information furnished by the

operator/lease holder, the respondent Authority is empowered

to do away with his registration and forfeit the registration fee.

Page 9 of 20

That, since inspite of alleging overloading by the writ petitioner

no such steps have been taken by the respondent, such

allegation of the respondent is to be considered as unfounded

and baseless. A judgment of this Court in W.P.No. 21636 (w)

of 2019 [National Carrying Corporation & Another versus

Union of India & Others] dated March 11, 2024 has been

referred to in this regard. Another judgment of Supreme Court

has been relied on in Harbanslal Sahnia & Another versus

Indian Oil Corporation Limited & Others at (2003) 2 SCC

107, in support of the argument that violation of the principles

of natural justice justify interference by the writ Court in

exercise of power of judicial review.

16. For all these reasons, Mr. Ray, learned advocate has submitted

that the petitioner would be entitled to be refunded with the

money and the writ petition may be allowed with appropriate

directions upon the respondent.

17. The respondent Authority is represented by Mr. Sanajit Kr.

Ghosh, learned advocate. The respondent‟s foremost argument

is with regard to non-maintainability of the writ petition, for

the reason that in this writ petition the petitioner has sought

for monetary relief and determination of the disputed issues

involve adjudication of the disputed questions of fact. In this

regard the respondent has relied on a decision of the Supreme

Court in Joshi Technologies International Inc. versus

Union of India and Others at (2015) 7 SCC 728, to submit

that as per the verdict of the Supreme Court there, money

claims per se particularly arising out of contractual obligations

are normally not to be entertained except is exceptional

circumstances. And also that whenever a particular mode of

Page 10 of 20

settlement of the dispute is provided in the contract, the High

Court would refuse to exercise its discretion under Article 226

of the Constitution and relegate the party to the said mode of

settlement, particularly if there are very serious disputed

questions of fact which are of complex nature and require oral

evidence for their determination. It is submitted that in such

view of the law now settled, the petitioner should be relegated

to the Railway Claims Tribunal for determination of any

dispute with regard to refund.

18. On merits the respondent has conte nded that the present

petitioner is a habitual defaulter, who has defaulted several

times to follow the prescribed norms of operation. It is

submitted that the writ petitioner is found to have overloaded

on six occasions, for which, in terms of Clause-13.4 of the

Lease Agreement, his contract has been terminated with effect

from February 6, 2020. Before that, on each occasion he has

deposited the punitive charges and took delivery of the

consignment.

19. In the present case after detection of overloading on February

5, 2020 at Gauhati, the petitioner took delivery of 184 packets

of perishable goods out of 271 of those without paying any

penal charges. The respondent states that as the petitioner

has voluntarily taken delivery of those goods as part of

consignment, there was no question for the Authority to take

steps in terms of Section-83 of the Act of 1989.

20. According to the respondent the petitioner would also be liable

for making erroneous entry in the railway manifest for which

the soul and entire responsibility lies on him or his

Page 11 of 20

representative as per Clauses- 11.9 and 11.11 of the lease

agreement. Furthermore, he has also violated terms under

Clause – 11.15 of the lease agreement by not ensuring that

total weight of the consignment noted in the parcel van is not

beyond the permissible carrying capacity of the unit leased out

to him.

21. Further, according to the respondent Authority the Joint Re-

weighment Report, which showed excess weight of 4892 kgs to

have been detected, was prepared and the re-weighment was

done in presence of the representative of the writ petitioner

and he accepted the report without lodging any protest

therefor.

22. The respondent has relied on the following two orders in

support of its contentions, (i) Kalpataru Agro Forest

Enterprise Private Limited versus Union of India [MAT

1418 of 2018 order dated January 27, 2020] , (ii) Titagarh

Wagons Limited & Another versus Union of India & Ors,

order dated April 5, 2022].

23. So far as the respondent‟s contention as regards non -

maintainability of the writ petitioner is concerned, Mr. Ray,

learned advocate for the petitioner has raised strong

resentment to the same. He submits on this point that gross

violation by the respondent Authority as regards the due

application of the rules and depriving the writ petitioner of his

right to be heard thereby violating the principles of natural

justice in his case, sufficient to justifies maintainability of the

instant writ petition before this Court. In this regard, he refers

Page 12 of 20

to the following two judgements of the Supreme Court to rely

on the ratio of the same.

Uttar Pradesh Power Transmisssion Corporation Limited

and Another versus CG Power and Industrial Solutions

Limited and Another reported at (2021) 6 SCC 15, in which

the Supreme Court has held that the writ petition may be

entertained notwithstanding availability of an alternative

remedy, particularly (i) where a writ petition seeks enforcement

of the fundamental right; (ii) where there is failure of principles

of natural justice or (iii) where impugned orders or the

proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or (iv) vires of an

Act is under challenge.

Unitech Limited and Others versus Telengana State

Industrial Infrastructure Corporation and Others reported

at 2021 SCC Online SC 99 , in paragraph 39 of which the

Supreme Court has stated-

“39. A two-Judge Bench of this Court in ABL International

Ltd. v. Export Credit Guarantee Corpn. of India Ltd. analysed a

long line of precedent of this Court to conclude that writs under

Article 226 are maintainable for asserting contractual rights

against the State, or its instrumentalities, as defined under Article

12 of the Indian Constitution. Speaking through N. Santosh Hegde,

J. the Court held :

“27. … the following legal principles emerge as to the

maintainability of a writ petition:

(a) In an appropriate case, a writ petition as against a State or

an instrumentality of a State arising out of a contractual obligation

is maintainable.

(b) Merely because some disputed questions of fact arise for

consideration, same cannot be a ground to refuse to entertain a

writ petition in all cases as a matter of rule.

(c) A writ petition involving a consequential relief of monetary

claim is also maintainable.”

Page 13 of 20

24. The objection as regards maintainability of the writ petition,

raised on behalf of the respondent authority, deserves to be

addressed at the threshold. The respondent has argued that

the dispute essentially arises out of contractual terms and

conditions between the parties and involves claim for refund of

money, coupled with disputed questions of fact, and therefore

the petitioner ought to be relegated to the forum of the Railway

Claims Tribunal or such other alternative remedy as may be

available in law. Reliance has been placed on the decision in

Joshi Technologies International Inc. (supra). There can be

no quarrel with the proposition of law laid down therein that

ordinarily a writ Court would be slow in entertaining monetary

claims arising purely out of contractual obligati ons,

particularly where adjudication of complicated disputed facts

requiring oral evidence becomes necessary. Judicial review

under Article 226 is not intended to convert the High Court

into a Court for enforcement of every contractual claim against

the State or its instrumentalities. The self-imposed restraint

exercised by constitutional Courts in such matters flows from

the doctrinal distinction between public law remedies and

private law disputes.

25. At the same time, the rule regarding alternative remedy or

contractual bar is not an inflexible rule of exclusion. It is

fundamentally a rule of prudence and discretion. Where the

action of the State or its instrumentality is alleged to be

arbitrary, violative of statutory prescriptions, or in breach of

the principles of natural justice, the writ Court does not

become denuded of jurisdiction merely because the dispute

has some contractual flavour. Public authorities are expected

Page 14 of 20

to act fairly even in contractual spheres, since Article 14 of the

Constitution permeates every State action.

26. In the present case, the petitioner has specifically alleged

violation of the prescribed procedure under the relevant

Freight Marketing Circulars and the Commercial Manual.

Allegations have also been raised regarding absence of proper

notice and denial of adequate opportunity at the stage of

weighment and re-weighment. The impugned action further

emanates from exercise of statutory powers under the

Railways Act, 1989 and the consequential imposition of

punitive charges by a public authority. Therefore, the dispute

cannot be said to be confined exclusively within the four

corners of a pure private contract.

27. The earlier order passed by this Court in W.P. No. 3165 (W) of

2020 had itself permitted re-weighment under section 79 of

the Railways Act, 1989, upon deposit of the charges, while

leaving the parties at liberty to initiate proceedings in relation

thereto. The present writ petition has arisen out of the

subsequent decision-making process culminating in the

impugned order dated March 5, 2021. Hence, the challenge is

directed not merely against a money demand simpliciter but

against the legality of the decision-making process adopted by

the respondent authority.

28. The principles laid down in Uttar Pradesh Power

Transmission Corporati on Limited (supra) and Unitech

Limited (supra), clearly recognise that the existence of an

alternative remedy does not create an absolute bar where

allegations of arbitrariness, procedural illegality or violation of

Page 15 of 20

natural justice are raised. Accordingly, this Court is of the view

that the writ petition is maintainable and the preliminary

objection of the respondent authority cannot be sustained.

29. However, maintainability of a writ petition and entitlement to

relief are two entirely distinct considerations. A litigant may

successfully cross the threshold of maintainability and yet fail

on merits. The Court must therefore examine whether the

petitioner has been able to establish any such illegality,

perversity or manifest arbitrariness in the impugned action as

would warrant interference in exercise of the extraordinary

discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the

Constitution.

30. The admitted factual position is that upon re -weighment

conducted pursuant to the earlier order of this Court, the

respondent Authority detected existence of 271 packages as

against the declaration made by the writ petitioner in the

manifest. The impugned order records that the petitioner never

disputed recovery of the said additional packages. The

respondent Authority has also specifically recorded that the re-

weighment process was conducted in presence of the

petitioner‟s representative and members of the vigilance team,

all of whom appended their signatures to the re-weighment

sheet. The petitioner has not been able to produce any

contemporaneous protest demonstrating refusal to accept the

process of re-weighment or repudiation of the signatures

appearing therein.

31. The petitioner‟s entire argument substantially rests upon

mathematical deductions sought to be drawn from selectiv e

Page 16 of 20

portions of the Joint Re-weighment Report. Such inferential

calculations, based upon segregation between hard parcels

and perishable items, cannot ipso facto invalidate the factual

conclusions arrived at by the competent authority, particularly

when the authority has simultaneously relied upon the

discrepancy between the number of packages disclosed in the

manifest and the number actually recovered. The writ Court,

exercising jurisdiction of judicial review, does not sit as an

appellate authority over factual determinations unless the

same are shown to be wholly irrational or unsupported by any

material.

32. The doctrine of judicial restraint in administrative review

requires the Court to examine the decision-making process

and not to substitute its own factu al conclusions merely

because another view may also be possible. So long as the

authority has acted within jurisdiction, considered relevant

materials and arrived at a plausible conclusion, interference

would not be warranted. The scope of judicial review is

directed against the decision-making process and not the

decision itself.

33. The petitioner has repeatedly contended that the weighbridge

might have suffered from mechanical defect. Such contention,

however, remains entirely unsubstantiated. No technical

report, inspection material or expert evidence has been placed

before the Court to make the malfunctioning of the weighment

mechanism as probable. Mere assertion cannot displace the

presumption of regularity attached to official acts performed by

the respondent Authority, in discharge of statutory duties.

Page 17 of 20

34. Equally significant is the fact that the petitioner admittedly

took delivery of the 184 packets of perishable goods. The

respondent authority has explained that once the petitioner

voluntarily accepted delivery of such goods, the question of

resorting to powers under section 83 of the Railways Act did

not arise. This explanation appears reasonable and cannot be

termed arbitrary.

35. The respondent has further placed on record that the

petitioner had allegedly committed similar defaults on earlier

occasions and punitive charges had been imposed and abided

by him previously as well. Though such previous conduct

alone cannot determine the outcome of the present lis, it

nevertheless lends contextual support to the respondent‟s

stand that the present incident was not treated as an isolated

or mechanically presumed violation.

36. This Court also cannot overlook that the lease agreement cast

specific obligations upon the petitioner under Clauses 11.9,

11.11 and 11.15 to ensure correctness of entries in the

manifest and compliance with permissible carrying capacity.

The responsibility of proper declaration primarily rested upon

the operator himself. Once discrepancy in packages and weight

was detected, the respondent authority cannot be faulted

merely because punitive consequences followed in terms of the

governing framework.

37. The further contention of the petitioner that mere deviation

from the procedure contemplated under the Freight Marketing

Circular No. 06 of 2014, Freight Marketing Circular No. 07 of

2021 and the provisions of the Commercial Manual would ipso

Page 18 of 20

facto render the entire action of the respondent authority void

ab initio and nugatory altogether, also does not impress this

Court. Firstly, the petitioner has not been able to demonstrate

any foundational prejudice caused to him going to the root of

the matter. Mere procedural irregularity, unless shown to have

occasioned failure of justice or caused manifest prejudice,

cannot invalidate an administrative action otherwise

supported by substantive materials. Secondly, the Circulars

relied upon by the petitioner are essentially administrative

guidelines intended to regulate internal proc edure and

operational uniformity. Unless a provision is shown to be

mandatory in character and coupled with penal consequence

for non-compliance, every procedural deviation cannot be

elevated to the status of jurisdictional illegality. The doctrine of

substantial compliance would squarely apply in the facts of

the present case, particularly when the respondent authority

has been able to substantiate the discrepancy regarding

number of packages and excess load through

contemporaneous records and re -weighment proceedings.

Judicial review does not proceed on mere technicalities

divorced from practical realities. A procedural prescription

cannot be interpreted in a manner so rigid as to defeat the very

object sought to be achieved by the regulatory framework

governing railway parcel operations. This Court, therefore,

finds that the alleged procedural lapses, even if assumed in

part for the sake of argument, do not have the effect of

nullifying the entire proceeding or rendering the impugned

decision non-est in the eye of law.

38. The petitioner has attempted to invoke violation of the

principles of natural justice. However, the records reveal that

Page 19 of 20

after the earlier order of this Court, re-weighment was

undertaken with participation of the petitioner‟s

representative. The petitioner thereafter submitted

representations which were duly considered and answered by

the respondent authority through the impugned order.

Therefore, this Court is unable to hold that there was such

gross procedural unfairness as would vitiate th e entire

proceeding.

39. The doctrine of proportionality also does not come to the aid of

the petitioner. The punitive charges imposed were not dehors

the contractual and statutory framework but were traceable to

the governing rules regulating overloading and false

declaration in parcel transportation. No material has been

shown demonstrating that the authority acted with malice,

collateral purpose or manifest disproportionality. The decision

relied upon by the petitioner in Harbanslal Sahnia (supra)

does not advance his case in the factual background of the

present matter, since this Court does not find any established

breach of natural justice or patent arbitrariness warranting

exercise of constitutional intervention.

40. For the reasons discussed above, this Co urt is of the

considered opinion that although the writ petition is

maintainable, the petitioner has failed to establish any legally

sustainable ground for interference with the impugned order

dated March 5, 2021. The impugned decision cannot be said to

suffer from perversity, procedural impropriety, irrationality or

violation of any statutory mandate warranting interference

under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Page 20 of 20

41. Accordingly, the writ petition being WPA 8707 of 2021 stands

dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.

42. Urgent certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be

supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite

formalities.

(Rai Chattopadhyay, J.)