Manish Kumar vs. The East Central Railway
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Manish Kumar, filed a writ petition challenging a letter dated November 3, 2025, issued by the Assistant Commercial Manager on behalf of the Divisional Railway Manager (Commercial), Samastipur. This letter imposed a penalty of ₹1,20,000 plus ₹21,600 (GST), totaling ₹141,600, upon the petitioner for alleged overcharging on vehicle parking. The petitioner sought to quash this penalty, prevent coercive action without due process, and ensure that his work order and contract agreement are not terminated without a proper hearing. The petition was filed before the Patna High Court.
Held
The Patna High Court, without delving into the merits of the case, disposed of the writ petition at the admission stage with the consent of both counsels. The Court directed Respondent No. 1, the General Manager of East Central Railway, to consider the representation made by the petitioner (Annexure P/10) strictly in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible, preferably within eight weeks from the receipt of the order. The Court also stipulated that if any clarification is required by Respondent No. 1, it should be communicated to the petitioner, who would then be given an opportunity to provide clarification. The Court did not decide on the validity of the penalty or the termination of the contract, as these issues were not adjudicated upon.
Key Issues
1. Whether the penalty of ₹1,20,000 plus ₹21,600 (GST) imposed on the petitioner for alleged overcharging on vehicle parking is legally sustainable, considering the due process and guidelines issued by the Railway Board? 2. Whether the respondents can take coercive action against the petitioner without following due process of law? 3. Whether the work order dated August 18, 2023, and the contract agreement dated July 28, 2025, can be terminated without affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing? The petitioner argued that the penalty was imposed without following due process and sought protection against coercive actions and termination of the contract without a hearing. The respondents did not contest the petitioner's request for a direction to consider his representation.
Sections Cited
None explicitly discussed or named in the judgment.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL ORDER 2 04-02-2026 Heard the parties.
The present writ petition has been filed for the following relief(s) : “(i) For Quashing of the letter dated 03.11.2025 issued under the signature of Assistant Commercial Manager on behalf of Divisional Railway Manager, (Commercial), Samastipur, vide letter no. C-536- 5PKG-MFP-CTB-SEE/SPJ-25 whereby and where under, Penalty amounting to 1,20,000/- + 21600/- ₹ (GST) Total 141600/- has been imposed upon the petitioner for the alleged 'over charging on vehicle parking'.
2/3 (ii)
For directing
the concerned respondents/authority, not to take any coercive action against the petitioner without following the due process of law/legal provisions and guidelines issued by the Railway Board. (iii)
For directing
the concerned respondents/authority not to terminate the work order dated 18.08.2023 and the contract agreement no. C- 536-PKG-MFP-CTB-SEE-25 dated 28.07.2025 without due process of law and without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as the petitioner apprehends from conduct of the authority that they may for some ulterior motive may take such action. (iv) For any other relief/reliefs the petitioner is found entitled in the facts and circumstances he stated herein below.”
Without going into the merits or demerits of this case, the present Writ Petition is disposed of at the stage of admission with the consent of both the counsels.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that it would suffice for the present if the representation given by the petitioner to the Respondent No. 1 is disposed of by the said Respondent by fixing a time frame.
3/3
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent-Railway submits that he has no objection if a direction is given to the Respondent No. 1 to consider the representation made by the petitioner and pass necessary orders, strictly in accordance with law.
Having regard to the above made submissions, the present Writ Petition is disposed of directing the Respondent No. 1 to consider the said representation made by the petitioner (Annexure P/10) strictly in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In case any clarification is sought by the Respondent No. 1 the same shall be communicated to the petitioner and the petitioner shall be given a chance to clarify the same.
With the above directions, the Writ Petition stands disposed of.
Shamshad/- (A. Abhishek Reddy , J) U
Reproduced from the public record of the Patna High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.