Patna High Court
Ranjet Pandey vs The Union Of India And Ors on 9 May, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9695 of 2016
======================================================
Ranjet Pandey Son of late Prabhunath Pandey Resident of Village- Patahi, Ja-
garnath PS Sadar District Muzaffarpur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The Union Of India through the Secretary Ministry of Rail, Rail Bhawan
New Delhi
2. The General Manager (Commercial) Indian Railway, Sonpur of Eastern
Central Railway.
3. Chief Commercial Manager, Indian Railway Sonpur of Eastern Central Rail-
way,.
4. The Senior Divisional Commercial Manager/ Sonpur of Eastern Central
Railway.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
For the Respondent/s :
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI)
Date : 09-05-2023
Matter is of the year 2016.
2. None appears on behalf of the respective parties.
3. In the instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the
following relief/reliefs:
"i. For issuance of an appropriate writ/s,
order/s, direction/s in the nature of CERTIORARI
quashing the notice dated 29.11.2013(annexure - 2) is-
sued under the signature of Sr. Divisional Commercial
Manager/Sonpur Of E.C. Railway whereby and where-
under the petitioner was directed to deposit lump sum
Patna High Court CWJC No.9695 of 2016 dt.09-05-2023
leased freight as per enhanced parcel rate in terms of
Freight Marketing Circular No. 25/2012 dated
29.11.2012, against the clause 3.3 of the five agree-
ments(Annexure-1) executed between the petitioner
and respondent, which is statutory in nature.
ii. For issuance of an appropriate writ in
the nature of MANDAMUS commanding and direct-
ing the respondent no. 2 to pay back the difference of
money to the petitioner arising due to charging of en-
hanced parcel rate since 07.12.2013 in contravention
of the clause 3.3 of the agreement with penal and statu-
tory interest."
4. Perusal of the records, matter seems to be disputed is-
sue which is required to be adjudicated in terms of Clause 26.0 of
the agreement dated 09.05.2013. Clause 26.0 reads as under:
"In the event of any difference of opinion or dis-
pute between the Railway Administration and the Leaseholder
as to the respective rights and obligations of the parties here-
under of as the true intent and meaning of these presents or
any articles of conditions thereof. Such difference of opinion
shall be referred to the sole arbitrator or any officer appointed
by the General manager, East Central Railway, Hajipur for the
time being whose decision shall be final, conclusive and bind-
ing on the parties, the intention of the party being that every
matter in respect of this agreement must be decided by him a
sole arbitrator and not taken to a Civil Court. All disputes are
subject to the territorial jurisdiction of Courts. In witness
whereby the parties have hereunder subscribed their names at
the places and on the dates hereinafter mentioned respec-
tively."
Patna High Court CWJC No.9695 of 2016 dt.09-05-2023
5. In the light of these facts and circumstances and the
fact that there are certain disputed issues which are required to be
adjudicated in terms of Clause 26.0 of the agreement dated
09.05.2013, this Court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate disputed
issues under Article 226 of the Constitution in the light of Apex
Court decision in the case of Subhash Jain vs. Rajeshwari
Suman and Ors. reported in 2021 SCC Online 562 and Union of
India and Ors. vs. Puna Hinda reported in (2021) 10 SCC 690.
6. Accordingly, writ petition stands disposed of reserv-
ing liberty to the concerned respective party to adjudicate in terms
of Clause 26.0 of the agreement cited supra.
(P. B. Bajanthri, J)
( Arun Kumar Jha, J)
GAURAV S./-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 15.05.2023
Transmission Date NA
