Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sangeeta Rustogi vs Union Of India & Ors on 15 January, 2026
15.01.2026
Item No.5
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Court No. 10 Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
AGM Appellate Side
W.P.A. 15348 of 2025
IA No. CAN 1 of 2026
Sangeeta Rustogi
-vs-
Union of India & Ors.
Mr. Saptorshi Roy.
Mr. Siddhartha Roy.
... For the petitioner.
Ms. Munmun Tewary.
Mr. Abhijit Ghosh.
... For the State.
Mr. Animesh Mukherjee.
Mr. Debashish Basak.
... For the respondent nos. 1 to 4 & 7.
1. In compliance of the earlier order dated 8.1.2026, the Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, Kharagpur Division, South Eastern Railway is appearing today in virtual mode.
2. The matter has been taken up for hearing on various occasions in order to satisfy this Court with regard to the levy of the punitive charges inflicted upon the petitioner.
3. The petitioner submits that as per the agreement dated 9.11.2024 the special condition of the contract 2 was with regard to the caliberation of parcel van on the LVPH coach having a carrying capacity of 24 metric tonne in the light of a Circular dated 15.9.2020 wherein the tare weight of LVPH coach has been stenciled as 39.5 tonnes in place of 33.5 tonnes (parcel van).
4. The petitioner has already paid the punitive charge under protest on 24.12.2025 and accordingly the goods were released on the same date.
5. It is further submitted that as per 14.3 of the Freight Marketing Circular No. 12/2022 that the contract shall be terminated in case of third overloading beyond the prescribed tolerance limit.
"14.3. If overloading (more than the permissible tolerance limit-i.e. 1.0 Tonne in case of Parcel Vans, and 5% of the permissible carrying capacity in case of SLR compartments) is detected on more than two occasions in any one contract, the contract shall be terminated with forfeiture of Security Deposit. For avoidance of doubt, contract will be terminated in case of detection of third overloading beyond the prescribed tolerance limit."
6. It is submitted that the petitioner has been charged for overloading on one occasion, therefore, the petitioner shall not be penalised for his contract to be terminated on account of the charge of overweight.
7. Learned counsel appearing for Union of India submits that in the light of subsequent Circular dated 10.8.2022 the tare weight of LVPH coaches has been 3 altered by reducing 39.5 tonnes to 36.5 tonnes.
8. A copy of the Circular dated 10.8.2022 is kept with the records.
9. It is further submitted that this change in LVPH coaches has been done in order to avoid a difference in tare weight from one coach to another coach.
10. The petitioner submits that such Circular dated 10.8.2022 was never brought to the knowledge of the petitioner and as such there is no reflection of the same in the agreement dated. 17.12.2024. The punitive charges being levied without assigning any reason whatsoever as to why such charges has been inflicted upon the petitioner.
11. Mr. Nishant Kumar could not satisfy the Court with regard to the issue of reducing the tare weight from 39.5 to 36.5 kms for not referring the same in the said agreement dated 17.12.2024 under which the petitioner is contractually obligated to conclude the contract.
12. After hearing the rival contentions of the parties, I am of the considered view that the Railway Authorities have acted arbitrarily, without any proper application of mind, contrary to the respective Circular Nos. 11 of 2022 dated 13. 6.2022 and Circular No. 12 of 2022 dated 14.6.2022 and the agreement dated 17.12.2024.
4
13. The agreement executed dated 17.12.2024 also does not speak of Circular dated 10.8.2022 as relied upon by the Railway Authorities. Inflicting of punitive charge runs contrary to the agreement dated 17.12.2024 which reflects the biasness and arbitrariness of the Railway Authorities.
14. From the available records, I find that the petitioner was never brought to the knowledge of the Circular dated 10.8.2022 nor the same was widely circulated in the public domain, therefore, the question of acting in terms of the said Circular does not arise. There is no reflection of the same in the agreement dated 17.12.2024. Since the punitive charge under protest has already been released therefore the petitioner shall not be foisted with a further liability of being penalised for overweight of the total consignment.
15. Since the petitioner has suffered only once in overloading the consignment, the contract of the petitioner shall not be terminated prematurely and shall operate uninterruptedly till the contract period expires.
16. The punitive charge that has been inflicted upon the petitioners will not be a bar to operate in future.
17. The writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs.
18. The application being CAN 1 of 2026 is accordingly 5 disposed of in view of W.P.A.15348 0f 2025.
19. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the learned counsel for the parties on usual undertakings.
[Smita Das De, J ]