Mohd. Abdul Wadood v. The Union of India & Ors.

The results of the initial weighment confirmed the total weight of the consignment to be 21,040 kgs being within the tolerable carrying capacity limit. Accordingly, the Railway Authorities issued a certificate in the form of a manifest, officially authorizing the attachment of the coach to the train to transport for destination station (Shalimar). After the train arrived at the destination station (Shalimar) on 18.2.2026 a second weighment has been conducted and found the parcel van to be overloaded by 1330 kgs in contravention to the certified weight recorded at the originating station (Hyderabad).

#5. Due to such discrepancies in the weighment, the Railway Authorities imposed punitive charges upon the petitioner to the tune of Rs. 32,019/- for overloading which is the subject matter of challenge before this Court.

#6. Being aggrieved by the action of the Railway respondents in detaining the consignment of the highly perishable goods and imposing punitive charges for overloading under Section 73 of the said Act, the petitioner made a representation dated 3

18.02.2026 before the concerned authority requesting inter alia for reweighment of the consignment to be conducted manually or by any other alternative mode of weighment.

#7. The petitioner files a supplementary affidavit annexing the order of rejection dated 20.2.2026. A copy of the supplementary affidavit is kept with the records.

#8. The petitioner submits that weighment has been conducted by the respondents at the Shalimar and has been found to be faulty due to the technical glitches in the in-motion weighbridge. It is contended that the cargo has been weighed at the point of origin and has been well within the permissible carrying capacity.

#9. It is further submitted that during the pendency of the writ petition the Railway Authorities has been pleased to consider the representation of petitioner but the same has been turned down by the Railway Authorities on 20.2.2026 on the ground of overloading in the light of Clause 14.3 of Freight Marketing Circular No. 12 of 2022, which reproduced below: “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 4 Security Deposit. For avoidance of doubt, contract will be terminated in case of detection of third overloading beyond the prescribed tolerance limit.”

#10. The petitioner relies upon Section 79 of the Railway Authorities Act 1989, which is reproduced below: consignee or endorsee.- A “79. Weighment of consignment on request of railway administration may, on the request made by the consignee or endorsee, allow weighment of the consignment subject to such conditions and on payment of such charges as may be prescribed and demurrage charges if any: Provided that except in cases where a railway servant authorized in this behalf considers it necessary so to do, no weighment shall be allowed of goods booked at owner’s risk rate or goods which are perishable and are likely to lose weight in transit. Provided further that no request for weighment of consignment in wagon-load or train-load shall be allowed if the weighment is not feasible due to congestion in the yard or such other circumstances as may be prescribed.”

#11. It is further submitted that exercising right under Section 79 of the Railways Act, 1989 cannot be denied in the light of a judgment of a Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court which has been subsequently affirmed by the Larger Bench of this Hon’ble Court in the matter of Union of India –Vs- Biswanath Agarwal in FMA No. 317 of 2001 wherein it has been observed that imposition of additional or penal charge upon an owner of the consignment on the ground of alleged overloading, the owner must be given an opportunity to dispute the allegation and if such allegation is disputed before the removal of the goods, 5 the consignment must be reweighed in the presence of the owner either at the destination or at the nearest station from the destination where there exists a weighbridge.

#12. The petitioner heavily relies upon the said judgment and submits that no show cause notice has ever been issued nor any opportunity has been given the petitioner to refute the allegations of overloading.

#13. The request for reweighment has arbitrarily and illegally turned down by the Railway Authorities which runs contrary to the mandate of the provisions of the statute.

#14. The petitioner relies upon another judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of DG Raj Highway Services –Vs- the Union of India & Ors. in WPA 17681 of 2025 wherein it has been categorically held that “upon perusal of the materials on record, it appears to this Court that Section 79 of the Railways Act provides for a right in favour of the consignee for weighment of consignment on its request”.

#15. Per contra, the Learned Counsel appearing for Railway authorities submits that the weighment has been conducted as per standard operating procedure. As per Section 73 of the said Act, Railway authorities 6 are empowered to levy punitive charges where the goods loaded exceeds the permissible limit to ensure track safety and prevent revenue loss. It is further submitted that as per Clause 14.3 of the freight marketing circular No. 12 of 2022, it has been specifically mentioned that if overloading is more than the permissible tolerance limit and if the same is detected in more than two occasions in one contract, the contract shall be terminated with forfeiture of security deposit.

#16. It is further submitted that since the overloading has been duly confirmed on two earlier occasions in compliance of the orders passed by the Coordinate Benches of this Hon’ble Court, the Railway authorities has imposed punitive charges and terminated the contract accordingly.

#17. The Learned counsel appearing for the Railway authorities seeks time to produce relevant documents in order to demonstrate that the petitioner has accepted the weighment of the consignment done by the same in-motion weighbridge but never disputed and/or objected the weighment on the ground of malfunction of the in-motion weighbridge.

#18. After hearing the rival contention of the parties this Court is of the view that interest of justice would be sub-served if the consignment is released on a 7 provisional basis to prevent further economical loss while protecting the interest of the Railways.

#19. In conspectus of the above as adumbrated herein, the principles of natural justice and fairplay demands that before such a claim can be raised and demanded, if such prayer for reweighment is made within a reasonable time from the date of demand the said authorities should allow reweighment in presence of the petitioner.

#20. The Railway authorities ought not to have reweighed the said consignment without giving any prior notice to the consignee and in any event when a demand has been made for reweighment the authorities concerned should not have deferred the matter. As a result the principles of natural justice demands that reweighment should have been done in presence of the petitioner. It is no longer res integra that the Railway administration under Section 79 of the said Act has the duty to allow reweighment of the consignment at the destination if requested by the consignee provided the request is reasonable and made before delivery. It is further held in Bansal Associates Limited Vs. Union of India reported at 2004 Supreme (Gau) 306 wherein the scope of Section 79 of the said Act has been clarified categorically in paragraph 6 wherein it has been held, which is reproduced below: 8 freight/charge levy and realize penal “6. A consideration of the arguments and counter arguments advanced on behalf of the rival parties amply reveal that the core point arising for determination of the Court in the present batch of cases is one relating to the power and competence of the Railway Authority to re- weigh/re-measure any consignment of goods in transit and on the basis of such re-weighment/re-measurement, from the consignee. The question raised is no longer res integra. In a recent pronouncements of this Court in the case of Nirmal Traders –Vs- Union of India reported in 2003 (2) GLT 175, the relevant provisions of the Railways Act and the several earlier pronouncement of this court with regard to the questions raised has been elaborately considered. The propositions emanating decision in the case of Nirmal Traders (s) may be briefly enumerated as followed: 1. Under Section 78 of the Railways Act, the Railway Authorities have an unfettered right to re-weigh/re- measure any consignment before delivery of the same. Such re-weighment/re-measurement need not be proceeded by any notice to the consignee. 2. Under Section 73 of the Railways Act the Railway Authorties have the power to impose penalty in case of overloading of wagons. However, the imposition of penalty must be proceeded by giving an adequate opportunity to the consignee to show cause. 3. Under Section 79 of the Railways Act, though a discretion is vested in the Railway Authorities to allow or disallow a re-weighment sought by a consignee, any refusal who allow such re-weighment must be for good and sufficient reasons and such reasons must satisfy the Court in the event of a challenge being made. 4. If the reasons for refusal to allow re-weighment under Section 79 of the Railways Act is found by the Court to be not tenable, the writ Court, may in an appropriate case, issue a mandamus directing the Railway Authority to carry out such re-weighment.”

#21. The Railway administration has a discretion to allow and/or disallow a request for reweighment, any refusal must be based on good and sufficient reasons. It is a well settled principles of law that the Section 79 contemplates that while reweighment is the discretionary power of the Railway administration and such discretion must be 9 exercised judiciously and not arbitrarily, specially when the consignee challenges the imposition of punitive charges for overloading that if a request is made prior to delivery and operational feasibility exceeds, the Railway should ordinarily permit reweighment to ensure transparency.

#22. In view of the above discussion, the following discussions are adumbrated hereinabove: a) The petitioner is directed to deposit the entire security amount to the tune of Rs. 32,019/- upon compliance of all statutory formalities within 48 hours from the date of communication of this order. b) The respondents shall conduct a weighment of the consignment in presence of the petitioner at the nearest alternative electronic in- motion weighbridge or by manually within a period of 48 hours from the date of the deposit made by the petitioner on account of the security amount. c) Upon fulfilment of all the conditions the respondents immediately release consignment in favour of the petitioner, preferably within 24 hours. d) No demurrage or warfage charges shall be levied further till the completion of the reweigment process. 10 e) The final liability of the petitioner shall be determined based on the results of the fresh weighment. If the consignment is found to be within the permissible limit plus the statutory tolerance, the security amount deposited to the tune of Rs. 32,019/- shall be refunded to the petitioner forthwith. f) The re-weighment has to be done by adopting an alternative mode of weighment upon payment of costs to be borne by the petitioner. g) The entire exercise shall be completed mandatorily within a period of two weeks.

#23. In view of the above the writ petition stands disposed of. All other consequential and connected proceedings shall abide by the result of the process of re-weighment.

#24. Since no affidavits have been exchanged, the allegations made in the writ petition are deemed not to have been admitted by the respondents.

#25. There shall be no order as to costs.

#26. Learned counsel for the Railways Authorities prays for a stay of the order and the same is refused.

#27. Urgent certified photocopy of this order, if applied for, be supplied the parties expeditiously on compliance of usual legal formalities. [Smita Das De, J] 11