JUDGMENT
S.S. Chadha, J.
(1) This petition and other connected petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seek a writ of mandamus directing the Railway Administration to give matching delivery of coal against the wagons belonging to the petitioners containing coal wrongfully diverted to loco sheds/power houses/public undertakings for their use.
(2) In order to appreciate the rival contentions, we may state the facts from this petition. The petitioner is a brick kiln owner at Sangrur and for the sake of his business to manufacture bricks, he purchases coal wagons from various places and have them booked through railways for dispatch to Sangrur. Two consignments of coal were booked with the Railway Administration, one under invoice No. 10 and 11, Rr No. 019001 and 019002 on March 9,1981 from Butibari to Ludhiana and the other under invoice No. 2 Rr No. 147270 dated March 20, 1981 from Satna to Sangrur. The Railway Administration had thus agreed to carry the coal from the forwarding stations to the destination stations for delivery to the consignees. The consignments consisting of steam coal were loaded in wagon No. Cr 3565 and Cr 81850 respectively. The said wagons No. Cr 3565 and Cr 81850 have not been delivered to the petitioner who-is the endorsee of the Railway receipts by the consignees. at the destination stations at Ludhiana and Sangrur and as such, the petitioner preferred formal claims by notice under Section 78-B of Indian Railway Act, 1890 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) vide his letters dated July 10, 1981 and July 16, 1981. It is pleaded that the petitioner was later informed that wagon No. 3565 had not been received at the destination but diverted and the petitioner requested the respondents for giving a matching delivery. As regards wagon No. Cr 81850, the petitioner also requested the Chief Claims Officer vide letter dated December 30, 1981 to grant matching delivery of coal to the petitioner. The allegations are then made that the matching delivery had to be granted to the petitioner as Wagon No. Cr 3565 had been wrongfully diverted to Maharashtra State Electricity Board, Bhusaval for their use on May 12, 1981 and wagon No. Cr 81850 had been delivered to Loco shed Jind on April 28, 1981 for their consumption. The failure of the Railway Administration to give the matching delivery of coal is branded as discriminatory on the plea that the respondents have been granting machine delivery to other persons placed in similar circumstances whose wagons of coal have been consumed by the Railway in its loco sheds or diverted to the power houses. Reference is made to the various policy decisions of the Ministry of Railways and memoranda issued from time to time for establishing the claim of the matching delivery of the two wagons. We will deal with these circulars in detail hereinafter as a batch of writ petitions are to be disposed of.
(3) Before construing those circulars, we may notice the background facts and the policy formulation by the Union or India as disclosed in the counter-affidavit. Prior to April 27, 1981 when the policy of granting matching delivery was formulated and announced, the Railway Administration was faced with the problem of tackling unconnected wagons of coal/coke. Wagons become unconnected because of its label getting misplaced or missing. It may not be possible to link within the normal period of seven days such wagons to a particular party because of missing particulars nor can such wagons be kept under load for too long. Keeping the wagons under load would lock up transport potential and the wagons go out of circulation. It was decided in the year 1978 to create coal dumps at suitable places on every zonal railway. The rationale behind creation of these coal dumps lay in the fact that the Railways felt the need of keeping contents of unconnected wagons together at one place, from where matching coal deliveries in genuine cases could be given. The guidelines for connecting the wagons against the original booking and on failure for disposal of unconnected coal wagons from coal dumps were given in the Northern Railway Head- quarter’s letter dated August 16, 1978. It, inter alia, enabled the coal]coke being offered to the loco sheds etc. for their use. Numerous complaints were received by the Railway Administration from time to time. It was observed that the creation of these coal dumps had resulted in a number of malpractices, in which unscrupulous traders and unscrupulous Railway staff had joined hands. The Railway Administration re-examined the question and felt that it was not possible to eliminate the mis. chiefs or to reduce them substantially. The Railway Board directed the stoppage of the practice of delivering unconnected coal Wagons against pending claims. The coal dumps were abolished. The system of granting matching delivery of coal against claims also ceased. With the abolition of the coal dumps, difficulty was felt for making available coal in emergent cases to various public undertakings. A number of representations were received. The Railway Board felt that in emergent cases where Railways feel constrained to divert coal wagons with a view to meeting the essential needs of the community, like keeping power houses and loco sheds running, matching delivery of coal wagons should be given. A policy decision was taken as regards the interception I diversion of coal consignment of private parties in public interest by the specified officers and for giving a matching delivery. The Ministry of Railways issued the instructions in that regard in the letter dated April 27, 1981 in these words : “Normally railways should avoid interception/diversion of public coal. However, in public interest, in order to meet essential needs of the community, it may sometimes become necessary to divert coal consignments to other public utility undertakings e.g. Power Houses, Steel plants. Fertilizers Plants, Loco Sheds etc. Such diversions should be undertaken only on the personal orders of Director, Traffic Transportation, Additional Director, Traffic Transportation, Joint Director, Traffic Transportation (Coal), in the Ministry of Railways, Director, Movements (Railways) Calcutta and the Chief Operating Superintendents, Chief Freight Traffic Superintendents and Additional Chief Operating Superintendents of the Zonal Railways. Whenever coal of any consumer is thus diverted a matching delivery should be made to him by the diverting railway not later than 30 days of the diversion. No diversion of coal consignments moving piecemeal or in multi consumer rakes should be done. No diversion should take place of steam coal for slack coal consumers. In no case, coal of one private consumer should be ordered to be diverted to another private consumer except with mutual consent of both the consignors/ consignees or their authorised agents. Under special circumstances, the railway may continue to divert the rake loads of coal belonging to one Power House to another Power House in pursuance of the agreement between the Ministry of Railways and the Ministry of Energy (Department of coal) circulated under letter No. 77/TC-III/57/1 dated 30-6-1979. As at present under special circumstances, diversion of coal wagons from one steel plant to another steel plant and one fertilizer plant to another, so long as the steel plants and fertilizer, plants are in the public sector may be continued to be done. Cbc fitted BOX/BCX/CRT wagons containing slack coal/steam coal hard coke/soft coke separated from mother rakes due to sickness enroute, should be diverted to nominated power house/loco shed/ railway workshop/BCCL, dumps respectively. The diverting authority should advise the particulars of the diverted wagons to : (i) Division control effecting diversion. (ii) Forwarding Station. (iii) Original destination. (iv) Diverted destination. (v) CCSs / Outstanding and CCOs of the railways on which the original and diverted destination lie. In all the cases of diversion the prescribed commercial formalities should be invariably followed
(4) The question of interception /diversion of coal consignments was re-examined by the Ministry of Railways and further instructions were issued in the memorandum dated August 16, 1984. This was with a view to minimising the incidence of diversions, even for the use of power houses and loco sheds. Further instructions were issued by the Ministry of Railways in the memorandum dated February 23, 1985. It dealt with the situations where piecemeal wagons belonging to private parties get detached from a block rake due to sick marking enroute. Such wagons have to be unloaded and /or diverted to the nearest loco sheds or power house. It was pointed out that the consignee, particularly if he happens to be a small party getting allotment of a small number of coal wagons, may insist on matching delivery of coal and does not want monetary compensation. In those cases the Director, Movement Railways was asked to give allotment of wagons or priority basis as per the instructions laid down therein.
(5) None of the petitioners before us has questioned the right of the Railway Administration to intercept and divert coal wagons of private parties to meet the essential needs of the community or public utility undertakings, for example, power houses, steel plants, fertilizer plants, loco sheds etc. We are not called upon in this case to go behind the policy or to determine its wisdom. The three circulars of the Ministry of Railways dated April 27, 1981, August 16, 1984 and February 23, 1985 contain the power of the Railway Administration to intercept and divert .coal consignments of private parties. It is necessary here to express the true scope and effect of the aforesaid circulars.
(6) Interception is to put a stop to the coal consignment before arriving at the destined place. The expression ‘interception’ is to put an end to the journey of the wagon. The word diversion means to give another route to the wagon instead of the existing one. The word diversion connotes permanent turning of the purpose of the use of the coal for a public purpose instead of it being delivered to a private party. Diversion is an overt act or an incidence of diverting from one course for use to another. It is a process of changing the destination of the wagon while it is in transit. The railways are directed to avoid this interception and diversion of public coal but in the interest of the public at large and when it becomes necessary power is conferred to divert coal consignments to the power houses, steel plants, fertilizer plants, loco sheds etc. The circular of April 27, 1981 then specifies the authorities under whose orders such interceptions/diversions could be undertaken. It also lays down that whenever coal of any consumer is thus diverted a matching delivery should be made to him by the diverting railway not later than 30 days of the diversion. In some of the cases before us in this batch of the writ petitions, there arc cases of interception /diversion by an overt act or a positive act of the Railway Administration but matching delivery have been denied. Such petition are entitled to succeed. The State must be bound to adhere to the declared policy.
(7) There are other two categories of cases before us in these writ petitions. One category of cases relates to the wagons which become sick enroute and they get disconnected at intervening stations. A coal wagon may get detached from the parent rake on account of being damaged during the run. The contents of some of the wagons which become sick enroute or damaged during the run are off-loaded and utilised in the loco sheds. The other category of wagons is where they are received either at an intervening station or at the destination station without labels and they cannot be connected inspite ‘of the efforts made by the Railway Administration to connect them against the original booking. In this category are also included wagons whose contents are transhipped enroute into another wagon which reaches the destination station but is not connected to a particular railway receipt or consignee. The contents of these wagons are then offered depending upon the quality of the coal either to the loco sheds or power houses of Railway workshops or other public undertakings. It is in case of these two categories of wagons which ultimately reach the loco sheds or power houses and the coal coke is consumed by them, that an arguable case is made out by the petitioners that they are entitled to a matching delivery. The submission is that the Railway Administration cannot unilaterally appropriate to its own use or divert for the use of any public undertaking the property of a citizen and if it does, then the citizen must be compensated by supply of matching coal wagons.
(8) Reliance is heavily placed on the circular of the Northern Railway dated December 17, 1982 issued in regard to the disposal of unconnected coal I coal wagons. It says that it has been decided to adopt the following procedure to dispose of the unconnected coal[coal wagons with immediate effect : “1.Whenever any coal/coke wagons has been consumed by loco sheds or by power houses, the consignees concerned may be given matching delivery of suitable unconnected coal/coke wagon. 2. In all other cases, unconnected coal/coke wagons will first be offered to railway units/government power houses in the following manner ; (i) Slack Coal wagons will be sent to nearest power house either of railway or State Electricity Board. (ii) Steam coal wagons will be offered to loco sheds. (iii) Hard coke wagons will be offered to railway workshops. (iv) Soft coke wagons will be offered to Bccl Dumps if any.”
Prior to it, there were two circulars, one dated March 28, 1981 and the other dated August 21, 1981 issued by the Ministry of Railways. The letter dated March 28, 1981 dates with the disposal of unconnected coal/coal wagons and prescribes the procedure. It stops the practice of linking unconnected coal wagons against overdue wagons off-setting pending claims. It says that all unconnected wagons of slack coal should be delivered to power houses; steam coal wagons should be delivered to loco sheds; hard coke wagons should be offered to railway workshops and the soft cake wagons should be offered to Bccl Dumps. The letter dated August 21, 1981 ism continuation of the instructions contained in the circular dated March 28, 1981. It says that having regard to the local conditions, where disposal of unconnected coal/coal wagons according to those instructions become operationally or otherwise not feasible, permission to grant matching delivery may be given by the competent authority in the best interest of the Railways. The Northern Railway has issued a further circular dated April 19, 1983 relating to the disposal of unconnected coal wagons. It enjoins upon the Control Office to get the backward passage of the unconnected wagons being traced to determine its dispatch particulars at Mughal Sarai Station. It is only when all efforts have failed that the wagon should be disposed of Ip accordance with the instructions contained in the circular dated December 17, 1982.
(9) Great emphasis is laid by all the counsel appearing for the petitioners on para I of the circular dated December 17, 1982 to urge that whenever any coal/coal wagons have been consumed by loco sheds or power houses, the consignees concerned must be given matching delivery of suitable unconnected coal/coal wagons. This, according to the counsel, is the plain meaning of para I of the circular dated December 17, 1982. If this para I is read out of context, then the meaning advanced by the counsel may be attributable to it. In our view, this in supersession of the policy contained in Ministry of Railways earlier instructions contained in the letters dated March 28, 1981 and August 21, 1981. It was issued, as the letter says, to regulate the disposal of unconnected wagons. It was not issued circular was issued in clarification of Ministry of Railways circular dated April 27, 1981. As already noticed, the policy was reiterated in the Ministry of Railways letters dated August 16, 1984 and February 23, 1985. The matching devoid is to be given only if the case of any consignee falls within the four corners of the policy laid down in the said circulars. The circular dated December 17, 1982 is to implement that policy contained in the Ministry of Railway’s circular dated April 27, 1981 which does not specify as to how the unconnected wagons have to be dealt with. Sometimes there are unconnected wagons which become available with the zonal railways and they have to be disposed of. The modes of disposal of unconnected, wagons is only prescribed in the circular dated December’17, 1982, one of which is by giving matching deliveries in cases Where the consignees are entitled to it. The said circular when refers to entitlement reiterates only that policy though the words of interception/diversion are not used therein. The end use of the coal/coke would not determine whether there was an interception/diversion by a positive act by the authorised officer of the Railway Administration. This is what it means in para 1 of the circular dated December 17, 1982. It is also made clear when para I is read in context of para 2 of till said circular. Under it, the unconnected coal coke wagons have to be offered to the Railway workshops, loco sheds, power houses etc. in the manner prescribed therein. The slack coal wagons are to be sent to the nearest power houses either of Railway or State Electricity Board. Steam coal wagons are required to be offered to loco sheds. Hard coke wagons are to be offered to Railway workshops. Soft coke wagons are to be offered to Bccl Dumps, , if any. They are offered to the loco sheds or the workshops or to the power houses with the purpose of being utilised there. When the coal coke is consumed by the loco sheds or power houses and the interpretation as put by the petition is accepted, then in all those cases matching delivery of suitable unconnected coal[coke wagons is required to be given to the consignees. In our view, this interpretation leads to absent results and has to be rejected.
(10) Apart from it, the basic responsibility of the Railway Administration under the Act as amended is that of a common carrier. The responsibility of Railway Administration as common carrier is provided in Chapter Vii of the Act. The Railway Administration is responsible for the loss, destruction, deterioration or non-delivery, in transit of animal or goods. delivered to the Administration to be carried by railway arising from any cause except those specified in the exceptions in Section 73. Subsequent sections alter or vary the responsibility of the Railway Administration in particular circumstances or exceptions thereto as detailed in the statutory provisions. Section 80 of the Act enacts a complete code regarding the Courts before whom the suits for settlement of compensation can be filed. It is settled law that where goods entrusted to a carrier are not delivered according to the contract, the consignee is entitled to damages and the measure of damages is. the value of the goods at the place of destination. There is no legal responsibility to deliver the goods in specie of similar kind. In case of non-delivery a consignee is entitled only to receive compensation from the Railway Administration. There is no question of giving any matching delivery to a consignee except where there is a declared policy of the Government. In those cases, the Government can be compelled to adhere to the declared policy. Under the law, therefore, in case of non-delivery, the consignees are only entitled to make a claim for compensation against the Railway Administration as a common carrier. The question also came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in C.W.P. 4452-53182. “M/s. Kanshi Ram Textiles Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of lndia”(l) in a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court made an observation that it will be wholly improper and illegal on the part of the Railway Administration to divert coal which was entrusts to them as carriers. However, it was pointed out that the petitioner there had to be relegated to the ordinary remedy of a suit for damages or other civil reliefs for non-delivery of goods consigned by them.
(11) A feeble argument is addressed by the counsel for the petitioners that the Railway Administration is not entitled to offer the unconnected coal/coke wagons to railway units or Government power houses and it must be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of Section 56(2) of the Act. It provides that if an owner is not known or the notice cannot be served on him, then the Railway Administration may sell the goods as nearly as may be under Section 55 rendering the surplus of the proceeds of the sale to any person entrned. thereto. In our view, if the wagon is unconnected it may be commercially impossible to communicate with the consignee or even consignor within a reasonable time. The sale of coal/coke wagons in open market may develop into a big scandal with the connivance of unscrupulous traders and staff of the Railways. There is wisdom in the decision of the Railway Administration to offer the coal/coke wagons to railway units/Government power houses. The word may used in Section 56 is not mandatory but only confers a discretion. Judgment continued on 20-3-1986
(12) That takes us to the consideration of the judgments cited at the Bar. The first is the decision of the Gujarat High Court in L.P.A. 242181 decided on October 12, 1981. The Division Bench noticed four classes of cases before that Court in the context of non-delivery of wagons and the matching deliveries. The first category is where the Railway Administration admitted in its return that the coal wagon was diverted to its own use or for the use of the Ahmedabad Electricity Company or any public undertaking. That Court had consistently intervened in the exercise of the writ jurisdiction and granted relief by directing the Railway Administration to deliver to the concerned petitioner a wagon containing coal of the same quality and quantity. This, in our view, is in accordance with the declared policy of the Government to which they can be compelled to adhere. The second class of cases in where the coal wagons did not reach destination or where it reached destination without label and it was diverted to some other party against its due consignment and where the Railway Administration through one of its responsible officers such as the Divisional Officer has held out a promise to the petitioner that an unconnected wagon would be delivered when received at the destination. In this class of cases also, the matching delivery was given on the observation that the rationale was that the Railway Administration must honour its promise and that it cannot be allowed to wriggle out of the same under any pretext. In no other case, the mandamus has been issued by the Gujarat High Court for the matching delivery. The next case is the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in “M/s. Durga Traders V. Union of India”, C.W.P. 585185 decided on October 10, 1958(2). In that case also, the petitioners there sought a writ of mandamus directing the Railway Administration to give matching delivery against a consignment of coal booked by the petitioners and which was alleged to be diverted by the Railways. It is noticed in that judgment that on July 14, 1983 the Area Superintendent, Ambala Cantt, Northern Railway informed the Station Superintendent, Chandigarh that the petitioners had approached the area office for getting matching delivery of the coal against Bcxt which still had not reached its destination, which request was agreed to but it was noticed that since no Bcxt was available it asked the party to take matching delivery of the wagons when available. Evidently, nothing was done and the writ petition was filed. The Division Bench of this Court quoted with approval the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in L.P.A. 242181 decided on October 12, 1981. The ratio of the judgment of this Court is based on the doctrine of promissory estoppel. Great emphasis has been laid by Shri B. S. Nainee, Advocate for the petitioners that in that case the coal was diverted at the intervening station, i.e. Saharanpur and, therefore, the Railways consciously delivered the petitioners’ consignment to one Mahavir Traders. The explanation given was that earlier unconnected wagons of Mahavir Traders had reached Nangal Dam and had been delivered to Nangal Fertilizer Ltd. An inference is sought to be drawn from that decision that the diversion in that case was not in pursuance of the policy of April 27, 1981 but was with a view to give a delivery of unconnected wagon to Mahavir Traders whose wagon had been delivered to Nangal Fertilizers Ltd. We feel that the basis of making a promise to the petitioners in that case was that the Railway Administration delivered the petitioners’ consignment to Mahavir Traders whose consignment had been delivered to Nangal Fertilizers Ltd. The promise was made, in those circumstances, which was compelled to be performed under the orders of the Court, when it is observed that “he must he given the coal especially as his delivery request has been conceded by the Railways, as far back as on July 14, 1983”. It does not spell out a ratio that if ultimately a coal or coke wagon is consumed by a loco shed or a power house, then a matching delivery has to be given for the same considerations as a deliberate interception and diversion. The next case relied upon is “M/s. Coal Commercial V. Union of India”, C.W.P. No. 588185 decided on December 3, 1985(3). The principle governing the matching delivery laid down by the decision in M/s. Durga Traders (supra) was noticed and reiterated. In that case, the petition related to 7 consignments of coal. The Chief Operating Superintendent had ordered matching delivery of two wagons and the Division Bench of this Court saw no reason why the Railway Administration should not honour that commitment. A direction was issued to the Railway Administration to give matching delivery of two wagons. So far as the other 5 wagons were concerned, there was no commitment made by the Railway Administration to give matching deliveries. The request for matching delivery was declined and only a direction was issued to pay the compensation as assessed by the petitioners in the notices. issued under Section 78 of the Act. This authority also does not advance the case of the petitioner that whenever any coal/ coke wagons have been consumed by loco sheds or power houses, the Railway Administration is bound to give matching delivery. The last case relied upon is “M/s. Jackson Coal Co. V. Union of India”, C.W.P. No. 1332185 decided on January 16, 1986(4). In that case also, the Division Bench found no ground to give to the petitioner there the relief by way of matching delivery, particularly because there was no commitment made by the Railway Administration. The decision of the Supreme Court in “M/s. Kanshi Ram Textiles Pvt. Ltd. (supra) decided on October 12, 1982 does not deal with the policy of the Railway Administration or the scope of it for giving matching deliveries. In that case by consent, 8 wagons in all were offered by the Railways to the petitioners there in total compensation of the goods which had not been delivered to them. The petitioners did not accept that offer and that was the end of that case.
(13) Only one principle emerges from the cases decided by the Gujarat High Court and three cases of this Court noticed earlier. It is this that where the Railway Administration through one of its responsible officers has held out a promise to the consignee that an unconnected wagon would be delivered or matching delivery would be given, then the Railway Administration has been made to honour its promise and a writ of mandamus can be issued.
(14) An additional argument has been addressed by Shri R. K. Jain, counsel for the petitioners in two writ petitions that the respondents by their action have illegally and arbitrarily deprived the petitioners of the raw material which is the basic necessity for the running of the business of manufacturing Chemicals by the petitioners there. The action of the respondents is urged as blatantly violative of consitutional guarantees contained in Articles 14 and 19(l)(g) of the Constitution of India. The counsel, however, did not elaborate. We may express that Article 14 of the Constitution provides that the State shall not deny to any other person equality before the law or the equal’ protection of the law. The principle of equal treatment embodied in Article 14 of the Constitution is also laid down in Section 28 of the Act. There can be no dispute to the right of each consignee to receive from the Railway Administration equal treatment with other consignees of the same kind. No consignee similarly situated can be subjected to inequality and undue preference. The consignees whose coal/coke wagons are intercepted and diverted form a class by itself. The interception and diversion of coal is in public interest, in order to meet the essential needs of the community where it becomes necessary to divert coal consignments to power houses, steel plants, fertilizer plants, loco sheds etc. In those cases, there is a supervening necessity of the public utility undertakings. The utilisation of coal for the public utility undertakings is by an act of compulsion of circumstances, otherwise, the public utility undertakings like power houses would stop with the result that no electricity would be available to the public at large. No essential fertilizers would be available to the agriculturist if the fertilizer plants are shut. We say no more as there is no challenge to the policy of interception and diversion by the Railways. In cases where a coal of a consignee is diverted, the Railway Administration has taken the responsibility of giving matching delivery within a period of 30 days of the diversion. There is thus a reasonable classification based on intelligible differentia when .laying the policy of giving matching deliveries against coal I coke wagons which have been intercepted and diverted to public utility undertakings. So far as the utilisation of the coal/ coke wagons which become sick enroute or reach either at the intervening stations or the destination stations without label and become unconnected, it is because they cannot and should not be sold in the open market. Selling them in the open market may open flood gates for malpractices. It is for this reason that they are offered either as matching deliveries where the consignees are so entitled or they are offered to the Railway units and Government power houses in the manner indicated in the guidelines laid down by the Railway Administration from time to time. It is more a case of disposal of unconnected coal wagon. The consignees of coal wagons whose wagons become unconnected, form a class by itself. We see a valid rationale in the classification made by the Railway Administration and do not find it discriminatory.
(15) We, therefore, hold on the interpretation of the circulars of the Ministry of Railways dated April 27, 1981, August 16, 1984 and February 23, 1985 that a consignee is entitled to get a matching delivery of the coal coke wagons only in cases where the interception diversion has taken place by an overt act or positive act of one of the specified officers of the Railway Administration and the coal consignments are diverted to the public utility undertakings. The other category of the consignees who are entitled to the matching deliveries are those in whose cases a responsible officer of the Railway Administration has held out a written promise that a matching delivery would be given.
(16) We may, however, express our opinion and record observation that the holding out of a promise to the consignee (except in those cases where coal/coke wagons are intercepted and diverted under the orders of the competent authority in the public interest) that a matching delivery would be given, has led to a discriminatory treatment to the consignees belonging to the same class. We deprecate this holding of the promise by some of the officers of the Railway Administration. If the Railway Administration had adhered scrupulously to the policy of giving matching delivery to those consignees whose coke/coal wagons were intercepted and diverted for public utility undertakings and not held out promises to categories other than that, then a lot of litigation in Courts would have been avoided.
(17) In this case, the counter-affidavit has brought out that wagon No. Cr 3565 became unconnected and ultimately it was unloaded at the Maharashtra State Electricity Board Power House at Bhusaval. The other wagon No. Cr 81850 on arrival at the destination Sangrur on April 14, 1981 became unconnected because it was without labels and documents. The wagon was kept under load for a fortnight and ultimately , Railway had to unload it at the nearest loco shed at Jind (wrongly mentioned as Sangrur in the counter-affidavit) on April 28, 1981. The case of the petitioner in this case, therefore, does not come within the two classes of cases where the matching delivery can be ordered.
(18) The petitioner in this case lodged the claim on July 10, 1981 with respect to one wagon and on July 16, 1981 with respect to other wagon. The claims would be considered by the Railway Administration for determination of compensation for non-delivery on merits and the question of limitation will not be raised. With the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.