Patna High Court
R. K. Impex Pvt. Ltd vs The Union Of India on 20 July, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.24893 of 2019
======================================================
R. K. Impex Pvt. Ltd. a company having one of its offices at Adarsh Nagar,
Birgunj- 13, Nepal- 44301, through Ravi Ranjan Kumar Ojha male aged
about 25 years son of Bhulan Ojha resident of Manana Ward No. 2, Raxaul,
Hardia, East Champaran Bihar - 8453053
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Railway, Government
of India, New Delhi.
2. The General Manager, East Central Railway, Hazipur.
3. The Chief Commercial Manager, East Central Railway, Hazipur.
4. The Divisional Railway Manager (Commercial), Sonepur, East Central
Railway, Sonepur.
5. The Goods Superintendant, Narayanpur Anant East Central Railway,
Muzaffarpur.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : M/s Gautam Kumar Kejriwal
Alok Kumar Jha
Akash Kumar, Advocates
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ram Tujabh Singh, CGC
Mr. Radhika Raman, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 20-07-2026
1. The petitioner has filed the instant
application for the following reliefs:
"a) For issuance of
appropriate writ or order or direction for
quashing of letter no.
ECR/CRM/FM/DC/NRPA/18 dated
25.06.2019
whereby the application filed
by the petitioner seeking waiver of the
demurrage charges of Rs. 4,672,800/-
has been disposed off by a nonspeaking
Patna High Court CWJC No.24893 of 2019 dt.20-07-2026
2/10
and fully silent decision insofar as
consideration of the grounds urged by
the petitioner in the application for
waiver;
b) For issuance of a direction
upon the respondent number 2 to
reconsider and decide the application
dated 08.03.2018 filed by the petitioner
for waiver of demurrage charges in
accordance with the relevant guidelines
and circulars of the Railway Board by a
speaking order so as to enable the
petitioner learn about the reasons and
findings on the basis of which the
application for waiver has been disposed
of;
c) For grant of any other
relief or reliefs to which the petitioner is
found entitled in the facts and
circumstances of this case;”
2. At the very outset, the Learned
counsel Mr. Gautam Kumar Kejriwal, appearing on
behalf of the petitioner submits that the issue
involved in the present writ petition is no longer
res integra. It is contended that the issue stands
squarely covered by the judgment dated
24.08.2021 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this
Patna High Court CWJC No.24893 of 2019 dt.20-07-2026
3/10Court in C.W.J.C. No. 3097 of 2021 (M/s
Swastik Associate Vs. The State of Bihar &
Ors), wherein an identical issue was considered
and adjudicated. The Learned counsel for the
parties, therefore, submit that in view of the
aforesaid judgment, the present writ petition may
also be disposed of, in terms of the order dated
24.08.2021.
3. In M/s Swastik Associate (supra)
this Court has held as follows:
“4. The brief facts of the case
are that the petitioner had booked
consignment of cement bags with the
railways, to be transported by Railway
Wagons. The rake of 42 wagons, containing
the cement consignment of the petitioner
had arrived at the Dauram siding on
27.09.2019, however, the petitioner could not
unload the cement bags from the wagons
within the stipulated time frame and the
cement bags could be unloaded only on
01.10.2019, after cessation of rains, resulting
in levy of demurrage charges to the tune of
Rs. 5,60,700/-. The petitioner, in terms of
Clause-2 of Railways’ Rates Master Circular
Demurrage-Waiver/2016, had paid the
demurrage charges on 06.10.2019 and on
Patna High Court CWJC No.24893 of 2019 dt.20-07-2026
4/10
the very same day had submitted waiver
application before the Goods Superintendent,
Dauram to be forwarded to the Divisional
Railway Manager, Samastipur along with his
recommendations. Thereafter, the
respondent Goods Superintendent, Dauram
on 06.10.2019 itself, had forwarded the
application of the petitioner to the Divisional
Railway Manager, Samastipur, along with his
recommendation, which is reproduced
hereinbelow:–
10. Consequently, this Court
finds that the order dated 21.01.2020 passed
by the respondent Divisional Railway
Manager (Commercial), Samastipur is wholly
unreasoned, has not considered the
recommendation of the Goods
Superintendent and moreover, no cogent and
succinct reasons have been furnished in
support of the impugned order dated
21.01.2020, which is an indispensable
component of a decision making process,
Patna High Court CWJC No.24893 of 2019 dt.20-07-2026
5/10hence this court finds that the impugned
order dated 21.01.2020 stands vitiated,
having been passed in violation of the
principles of natural justice. In this regard, it
would be relevant to refer to a judgment
rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the
case of Kranti Associates (P) Ltd. v.
Masood Ahmed Khan, reported in (2010)
9 SCC 496, paragraphs No. 12 to 15 and 47
whereof are reproduced hereinbelow:–
12. The necessity of giving
reason by a body or authority in support of its
decision came up for consideration before
this Court in several cases. Initially this Court
recognised a sort of demarcation between
administrative orders and quasi-judicial
orders but with the passage of time the
distinction between the two got blurred and
thinned out and virtually reached a vanishing
point in the judgment of this Court in A.K.
Kraipak v. Union of India [(1969) 2 SCC 262 :
AIR 1970 SC 150].
13. In Keshav Mills Co. Ltd. v.
Union of India [(1973) 1 SCC 380 : AIR 1973
SC 389] this Court approvingly referred to the
opinion of Lord Denning in R. v. Gaming
Board for Great Britain, ex p Benaim [[1970]
2 Q.B. 417 : [1970] 2 WLR 1009 : (1970) 2 All
ER 528 (CA)] and quoted him as saying “that
heresy was scotched in Ridge v. Baldwin
[[1964] A.C. 40 : [1963] 2 WLR 935 : (1963) 2
Patna High Court CWJC No.24893 of 2019 dt.20-07-2026
6/10
All ER 66 (HL)]”.
14. The expression “speaking
order” was first coined by Lord Chancellor
Earl Cairns in a rather strange context. The
Lord Chancellor, while explaining the ambit of
the writ of certiorari, referred to orders with
errors on the face of the record and pointed
out that an order with errors on its face, is a
speaking order. (See pp. 1878-97, Vol. 4,
Appeal Cases 30 at 40 of the Report).
15. This Court always opined
that the face of an order passed by a quasi-
judicial authority or even an administrative
authority affecting the rights of parties, must
speak. It must not be like the “inscrutable
face of a sphinx”.
47. Summarising the above
discussion, this Court holds:
(a) In India the judicial trend has
always been to record reasons, even in
administrative decisions, if such decisions
affect anyone prejudicially.
(b) A quasi-judicial authority
must record reasons in support of its
conclusions.
(c) Insistence on recording of
reasons is meant to serve the wider principle
of justice that justice must not only be done it
must also appear to be done as well.
(d) Recording of reasons also
Patna High Court CWJC No.24893 of 2019 dt.20-07-2026
7/10operates as a valid restraint on any possible
arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasi-judicial
or even administrative power.
(e) Reasons reassure that
discretion has been exercised by the
decision-maker on relevant grounds and by
disregarding extraneous considerations.
(f) Reasons have virtually
become as indispensable a component of a
decision-making process as observing
principles of natural justice by judicial, quasi-
judicial and even by administrative bodies.
(g) Reasons facilitate the process
of judicial review by superior courts.
(h) The ongoing judicial trend in
all countries committed to rule of law and
constitutional governance is in favour of
reasoned decisions based on relevant facts.
This is virtually the lifeblood of judicial
decision-making justifying the principle that
reason is the soul of justice.
(i) Judicial or even quasi-judicial
opinions these days can be as different as the
judges and authorities who deliver them. All
these decisions serve one common purpose
which is to demonstrate by reason that the
relevant factors have been objectively
considered. This is important for sustaining
the litigants’ faith in the justice delivery
system.
Patna High Court CWJC No.24893 of 2019 dt.20-07-2026
8/10
(j) Insistence on reason is a
requirement for both judicial accountability
and transparency.
(k) If a judge or a quasi-judicial
authority is not candid enough about his/her
decision-making process then it is impossible
to know whether the person deciding is
faithful to the doctrine of†of incrementalism.
(I) Reasons in support of
decisions must be cogent, clear and succinct.
A pretence of reasons or “rubber-stamp
reasons” is not to be equated with a valid
decision-making process.
(m) It cannot be doubted that
transparency is the sine qua non of restraint
on abuse of judicial powers. Transparency in
decision-making not only makes the judges
and decisionmakers less prone to errors but
also makes them subject to broader scrutiny.
(See David Shapiro in Defence of Judicial
Candor [(1987) 100 Harvard Law Review 731-
37].)
(n) Since the requirement to
record reasons emanates, from the broad
doctrine of fairness in decision-making, the
said requirement is now virtually a
component of human rights and was
considered part of Strasbourg Jurisprudence.
See Ruiz Torija v. Spain [(1994) 19 EHRR 553]
EHRR, at 562 para 29 and Anya v. University
Patna High Court CWJC No.24893 of 2019 dt.20-07-2026
9/10
of Oxford [2001 EWCA Civ 405 (CA)], wherein
the Court referred to Article 6 of the
European Convention of Human Rights which
requires,
“adequate and intelligent reasons must be
given for judicial decisions”.
(o) In all common law jurisdictions
judgments play a vital role in setting up
precedents for the future. Therefore, for
development of law, requirement of giving
reasons for the decision is of the essence and
is virtually a part of “due process”.
13. Having regard to the facts and
circumstances of the case and for the
reasons mentioned hereinabove, the
impugned order dated 21.01.2020, passed by
the Divisional Railway Manager (Commercial),
Samastipur is set aside and the matter is
remanded back to the Divisional Railway
Manager (Commercial), Samastipur, with a
direction to him to consider the
recommendation of the Goods
Superintendent, Dauram dated 06.10.2019
and pass a reasoned and a speaking order,
after application of mind within a period of six
weeks from the date of receipt/production of
a copy of this judgment, in accordance with
law.
14. The writ petition stands disposed
of on the aforesaid terms.
Patna High Court CWJC No.24893 of 2019 dt.20-07-2026
10/10
4. Having regard to the submissions
made by the parties, the present writ petition
stands disposed of in terms of the aforesaid
judgment passed in M/s Swastik Associate
(supra).
5. Accordingly, the impugned order
dated 25.06.2019 (Annexure 2) is set aside and the
and the matter is remanded back to the Divisional
Railway Manager (Commercial), Sonepur, with a
direction to him to consider the recommendation of the
Goods Superintendent, Narayanpur Anant dated
08.3.2018 and pass a reasoned and a speaking order,
after application of mind within a period of six weeks
from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this
judgment, in accordance with law.
6. Interlocutory Application, if any, shall
stands disposed of.
(G. Anupama Chakravarthy, J)
Spd/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 22.07.2026 Transmission Date
