( 1 ) THIS appeal arises out of a judgment delivered by Chittatosh Mookerjee, J. on the 15th of March, 1973 on an application under Article 226 of the Constitution. The appellant was asking for issue of appropriate Writs to rescind or recall or withdraw certain orders passed by or on behalf of the respondents which had been annexed to the petition. Broadly speaking, by these orders the appellant was asked to pay for the Railway staff including their salaries and allowances posted at the appellant's Assisted Siding within the appellant's factory. Chittatosh Mookerjee, J, has dismissed the application. ( 2 ) BY an indenture of sale dated the 26th February, 1935 the appellant purchased 440 bighas of land at Nanji in the district of 24-Parganas including a Railway siding from the Commissioners for the Port of Calcutta. Thereafter on the 17th of April, 1943 an agreement was entered into between the Governor General in Council of the one part and Messrs. Bata Shoe Company Limited (the appellant) of the other part for continuation of the connection in the form of a Siding. The relevant clauses of this agreement are as follows:clause 8 - Freight for all classes of goods shall be charged upto and from Nanji Station. Railway receipts and invoices shall be issued to and from the said siding only and in accordance with the rates from time to time published in the Goods Tariff books or other Public Notification or Notifications of the Railway Administration. . . . CLAUSE 10 (a) - Wagons shall be made over to the firm and returned by the firm in the form of a certificate shown in Annexure A. CLAUSE 10 (c) - As soon as the wagons are placed at the point X referred to or at any other mutually agreed upon the Station Master or Railway servant authorized in his behalf shall after filing up Parts I and II of Annexure A have Part I signed by the consignee and will himself sign Part II and make it over to the consignee with Part III, when the wagons shall be considered as made over to the consignee and therefrom the free time allowed shall commence. Similarly, the wagons shall be considered as returned to the Railway Administration when they are placed at the point X referred to or the other appointed place and notice of such placing has been given to the Station Master or Railway servant authorized in his behalf by the consignee on Part III of Annexure ?a', which will be filled up by the latter and signed by both consignor and Station Master in each other's presence. ( 3 ) THESE are the terms which indicate the places and points at which the Railway will take upon itself the responsibility for the carriage of the goods. ( 4 ) CLAUSE 12 is important for our purpose. It says :-THE Railway Administration shall not be responsible for the contents of wagons (booked at either owner's or Railway Risk) during the time such wagons are in transit over the siding between the point X and the firm's premises. The firm shall, however, be at liberty to put its private locks on all such wagons for so long as they are at the firm's risk. The procedure for booking outward wagons and delivery of inward wagons shall be in accordance with the rules in force in the Goods Tariff books or other public notification or notifications from time to time subject to such modifications as may be considered necessary by the railway administration. ( 5 ) ONE of the specific conditions of the agreement therefore was that the booking of outward wagons and delivery of inward wagons were to be governed by a procedure laid down inter alia in public notification or notifications subject to modifications made from time to time. Our attention has been drawn to sections 2 and 3 of the Indian Railway Board Act, 1905. These sections invest the Railway Board with powers under the Railway Act 1890 and provide for the mode of communication from the Railway Board. At the time the Siding Agreement was concluded the relevant notifications of the Railway Board and the subsequent notifications thereafter have to be carefully considered to appreciate the contentions of the appellant and the respondents before us. At the time the Siding Agreement was concluded the relevant notifications of the Railway Board and the subsequent notifications thereafter have to be carefully considered to appreciate the contentions of the appellant and the respondents before us. In paragraph 3 of the supplementary affidavit of H. F Pinto, Secretary, Railway Board, affirmed at New Delhi on the 25th of January, 1973 reference has been made to paragraphs 1412 and 1413 of the State Railway Code for Traffic Department which was in force at the time the Siding Agreement had been concluded. This Code, it is stated, came into existence in compliance with the requirements of section 3 of the Indian Railway Board Act, 1905 by virtue of the directives issued by the Board. The said paragraphs are as follows: -1412 - Loading or unloading goods in assisted sidings : Goods should not be loaded or unloaded in assisted siding by the Station Staff unless there exists special authority for this being done. 1413 - Where a goods clerk is posted in an assisted siding and his wages are paid for by the owner thereof, the loading of goods will be supervised and tallied by the goods clerk, and Railway Receipts for the specific number of packages loaded will be granted. Where no goods clerk is posted, the consignment loaded in an assisted siding will be booked at the Station in same way as any other consignment, but, owing to the difficulty of making an accurate check of an already loaded wagon, a ? said to contain Receipt only may be granted in all those cases in which such a check has not been exercised. ( 6 ) FROM these paragraph it is clear that at the time the siding agreement was made the Railway Code provided for posting of Goods Clerk in assisted sidings, whose wages were to be paid by the owner of the siding. Loading of goods was to be supervised and tallied by the Goods Clerk and the railway receipts were to be granted accordingly. But at sidings with no Goods Clerk posted at the expense of the owner ? said to contain? railway receipts might be granted. In other words, the Railways had no obligation to maintain a Goods Clerk at their own expense at an assisted siding. But at sidings with no Goods Clerk posted at the expense of the owner ? said to contain? railway receipts might be granted. In other words, the Railways had no obligation to maintain a Goods Clerk at their own expense at an assisted siding. ( 7 ) THE above Code was modified in many aspects in 1958 under the authority of the Railway Board. The modified Code has also been placed before us. Paragraph 1809 of Chapter XVIII of the Code is in the following terms: -1809 : Posting of Railway Clerks in Assisted/private Siding for tallying goods - Railway Administrations are not under any obligation to provide Goods Clerks or other staff for tallying or supervising goods loaded in or unloaded from wagons in Assisted and Private Siding. Railway Administrations may however consider requests for posting Goods Clerks in such siding provided the owners thereof agrees to bear the cost and after incidental charges for such railway staff. ( 8 ) IT is the common case that since the inception of the siding agreement the Railways were not calling upon the appellant to pay for the expenses of maintaining the Railway Staff at the appellant's assisted siding until the impugned orders were issued between the 1st/7th October 1963 and the 29th May 1964. There were audit objections by the Railway Auditors and pursuant to these objections the Railways were seeking by these impugned orders to withdraw the facilities so long enjoyed by the appellant at its assisted or private siding. ( 9 ) APPEARING for the appellant Mr. Kapoor relied on section 27 (1) of the Indian Railways Act, 1890. The sub-section reads thus :-EVERY railway administration shall, according to its powers, afford all reasonable facilities for the receiving, forwarding and delivering of traffic upon and from the several railways belonging to or worked by it and for the return of rolling-stock. ( 10 ) LEARNED Counsel contends that the facilities which the appellant ha claimed for the posting of the Commercial staff at the assisted siding at the cost of the Railway Administration are reasonable facilities within the meaning of section 27 (1 ). And any attempt on the part of the Railways to withdraw the facilities would be a violation of the provisions of the said sub-section (1 ). Mr. Kapoor referred to annexure ?g? to the petition which contained one of the impugned orders. And any attempt on the part of the Railways to withdraw the facilities would be a violation of the provisions of the said sub-section (1 ). Mr. Kapoor referred to annexure ?g? to the petition which contained one of the impugned orders. The document is dated 1st/7th October 1963 and is addressed by the Divisional Superintendent, Eastern Railway, to the appellant. In this document advantages of having a Railway staff at the assisted siding have been elaborately discussed and the appellant has been requested to pay for the maintenance of the staff in future. According to counsel for the appellant the advantages pointed out would establish that the facilities which were afforded were reasonable and could not be withdrawn in view of the provisions of section 27 (1 ). It is obvious that the appellant was deriving tangible benefits by reason of the presence of the Railway staff at its assisted siding. But that does not mean that these benefits should be termed as reasonable facilities within the meaning of the aforesaid sub-section. Section 27 (1) speaks of reasonable facilities to be afforded by the Railway Administration ?according to its powers?. Mr. Kapoor says that the expression ?according to its powers? means according to the total capacity of the Railways. We do not agree with this construction. It seems to us that the phrase ?according to its powers? means according to the powers enjoyed by the Railway Administration either under the statute itself or under the relevant code or notifications. We have discussed in detail what were the precise obligations of the Railways in the matter of posting of Railway staff at the appellant's assisted siding both at the time the siding agreement was executed and also in 1958. The Railway Administration had no obligation to maintain a staff at the assisted or private siding of the appellant at its own cost. The appellant could ask for the said staff for its own benefits on payment of the costs involved. Learned Counsel for the appellant has urged that the agreement on the terms and conditions of the Railway Code are irrelevant for the purpose of construing section 27 (1) and the Railway Administration was bound to afford facilities which the appellant was enjoying from the very beginning as these were reasonable facilities in terms of section 27 (1 ). Learned Counsel for the appellant has urged that the agreement on the terms and conditions of the Railway Code are irrelevant for the purpose of construing section 27 (1) and the Railway Administration was bound to afford facilities which the appellant was enjoying from the very beginning as these were reasonable facilities in terms of section 27 (1 ). We have already stated that this is not a correct approach to sub-section (1) of section 27. The powers of the Railway Administration derived either from the Act or after relevant statutes and notifications including directions of the Railway Board issued under statutory powers have all to be considered to determine the nature of facilities which the appellant was entitled to as a matter of right under section 27 (1 ). It seems to us that the Railway Administration had at no time any specific obligation to maintain and pay for the Railway staff at the assisted siding. Its decision, therefore to withdraw the staff unless the appellant agreed to pay for them was not at all unreasonable on the facts and in the circumstances of this case. In fact at the appellant's private siding the appellant till now was enjoying special facilities free of cost and it cannot be said that the Railways demand that the appellant should pay for these special facilities is unjust or unreasonable. ( 11 ) FOR the reasons aforesaid we are in agreement with the conclusions reached by the learned trial Judge. This appeal is dismissed. There will be no order for costs. ( 12 ) OPERATION of this order shall remain stayed for three weeks from this date. Salil Kumar Dutta, J: I agree. Appeal dismissed.