Calcutta High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging Rejection of Demurrage and Wharfage Charges Waiver
Safiya Malik
The Calcutta High Court has dismissed a writ petition challenging the rejection of a request for a complete waiver of demurrage and wharfage charges levied by railway authorities. The matter was adjudicated by Justice Partha Sarathi Sen, who upheld the decision of the railway authority rejecting the petitioner’s appeal. The court recorded that the impugned order was passed in accordance with law and did not warrant interference in the exercise of writ jurisdiction. The petitioner’s challenge arose from a letter dated January 13, 2012, in which the railway authorities communicated their decision not to grant a full waiver of the charges.
The petitioner had sought relief from demurrage and wharfage charges imposed due to an alleged delay in unloading and removing a consignment of salt transported by rail. The petitioner contended that the delay was caused by circumstances beyond his control, including obstruction by goods belonging to a previous consignee. The railway authorities, however, denied full waiver, granting only a 50 percent reduction in demurrage charges. The petitioner’s subsequent appeals were rejected, leading to the present challenge before the High Court.
The case involved a consignment of 90 containers of salt that arrived at Raniganj Goods Shed on March 5, 2010. The petitioner claimed that the designated unloading line was obstructed and requested a transfer to an alternate track. The request was not acceded to, and the consignment was ultimately unloaded the following day. The consignment was completely removed from the railway premises on March 8, 2010. The railway authorities levied demurrage charges amounting to ₹67,500 and wharfage charges of ₹1,01,900.
Also Read: Supreme Court Directs Pension Grant After Service Regularization in Long-Pending Employment Dispute
The petitioner requested a waiver of these charges, arguing that the delay was caused by factors beyond his control. The railway authorities initially declined to consider the request unless the charges were paid. The petitioner deposited the amount under protest and pursued an appeal. The respondent authorities granted a waiver of 50 percent of the demurrage charges but declined to waive the remaining demurrage and wharfage charges. A subsequent re-appeal was rejected on the ground of late submission, and a final appeal was also turned down on the basis that no further waiver was justified.
The petitioner argued that the delay in unloading was caused by pre-existing obstructions in the unloading area and that railway authorities failed to accommodate his request for an alternative placement. The petitioner submitted that the rejection of his request for full waiver was arbitrary and contrary to railway rules governing demurrage and wharfage charges. The petitioner placed reliance on the railway authorities’ own affidavit, which acknowledged that the designated unloading area was partially obstructed.
The respondents, represented by counsel, relied on circulars governing free time for unloading and removal of consignments. The railway authorities argued that under the applicable rules, the permissible free time for unloading was nine hours, and the free time for removal was twelve working hours. Any delay beyond these periods attracted demurrage and wharfage charges. It was submitted that the waiver rules permitted discretionary relief in specific circumstances but did not mandate full waiver unless exceptional conditions were met.
The court examined the relevant railway circulars, including Circular No. 74 of 2005 and Circular No. 39 of 2004, which governed waiver of demurrage and wharfage charges. The court noted that the waiver rules classified delays into three categories: reasons within the control of the consignee, reasons beyond the control of the consignee, and extraordinary circumstances such as natural disasters or war. The court observed that the railway authorities had exercised discretion in granting a partial waiver and found no basis to interfere with their decision.
The court recorded: "The power of waiver should be exercised judiciously keeping in view the merits of each case as per instructions contained in this letter. The waiver should not be granted in a routine manner." The court further noted that the respondent authority had acted in a quasi-judicial capacity and had considered all relevant materials before rejecting the appeal. The court observed: "The respondent no.3 in exercise of its quasi-judicial power after assigning reason accepted the version of its functionaries regarding the cause of delay in unloading the consignment from the rake as well as the cause of delay for removal of consignment from the wharf."
The court held that the scope of judicial review did not extend to reassessing factual determinations made by competent authorities in the absence of procedural irregularities or extraneous considerations. The court observed: "This Court being a writ court sitting in a judicial review is not supposed to act as an appellate authority and therefore it is not desirable to reassess the said evidence as considered by respondent no.3 while passing the reasoned order in absence of any material that such reasoned order is based on extraneous materials."
The court further rejected the petitioner’s contention that the railway authority had misinterpreted the rules regarding free time for unloading and removal. The court found that the relevant rules clearly stipulated that the free time commenced from the actual time of arrival of the consignment and not from the time unloading began. The court referred to a subsequent circular issued on March 17, 2010, which stated that "commercial placement of a rake will commence from the time of its operational placement in the railway goods shed/siding irrespective of the fact that unloading/loading could not commence immediately for reason such as non-availability of free space on adjoining platform, non-availability of covered shed, rain, etc."
The court found no irregularity in the railway authority’s decision and concluded that no grounds existed for interference. It recorded: "This Court thus finds no irrationality/irregularity/illegality in the reasoned order dated 11.01.2012 as communicated to the writ petitioner under cover of letter dated 13.01.2012."
The writ petition was dismissed, and no costs were imposed. The court directed that urgent certified copies of the judgment be provided to the parties upon compliance with formalities.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Mr. Ram Anand Agarwala, Advocate; Ms. Nibedita Pal, Advocate; Mr. Ananda Gopal Mukherjee, Advocate; Ms. Sonam Ray, Advocate; Ms. Nasrin Khatoon, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Ms. Aparna Banerjee, Advocate.
Case Title: Rameshwar Lal Agarwal v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number: WPA 21187 of 2012
Bench: Justice Partha Sarathi Sen
[Read/Download order]
