Judgment S.B.Sinha and R.N.Prasad JJ. 1. The petitioners who carry on business as whole-sale dealers of fish have filed this writ application for a direction upon the respondents to forbear them from realising the charges by way of freight for the goods delivered to the petitioner Patna Junction Railway Station in absence of the railway receipt. 2. The contention of the petitioners, in short, is that Agents and Adhatias booked the perishable goods on payment of total freight at the booking station wherefor railway receipts are prepared in triplicate. writ application the petitioners have stated as follows :- Normally the guard of that train who carries the goods in the parcel van has to submit the Railway Receipts to the Station authorities at the time of delivery of the goods because he used to receive the goods for loading in the parcel van along with the RAILWAY receipts according to the Rail Receipts the guard has to deliver the said goods to the particular station to which the goods are booked. The Chief Parcel Clerk/Parcel Clerk of the Patna Junction use to charge Rs. 500 to Rs. 700 for each tokri of fish from the fish dealer, and Rs. 50 each packet from the fruits dealers on account of freight and charges on the plea that the concerned guard has not submitted the Railway Receipts against the goods delivered to him. The petitioners have contended that in cases where they are not in a position to hand over railway receipts, indemnity bonds are executed till the production of the railway receipts. The petitioners have further contended that they have also executed guarantee bonds for a period of three years which are still operating. According to the petitioners, they are harassed for non-production of the railway receipts by the officials of the railway administration as at the time of taking delivery of perishable goods like fish fruits they are asked to pay the prices therefor. 3. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the railway administration it has been contended that the norms prescribed for delivery of perishable consignments is contained in Rule 961 of Vol. I of the Indian Railway Commercial Manual and the railway administration is merely enforcing the said provision. 3. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the railway administration it has been contended that the norms prescribed for delivery of perishable consignments is contained in Rule 961 of Vol. I of the Indian Railway Commercial Manual and the railway administration is merely enforcing the said provision. It has been stated that failure to comply with the said rules strictly, leads to loss and harassment caused to the railway administration and thus a communication dated 10-2-1992 as contained in Annexure B to the counter-affidavit had been issued whereby and whereunder all concerned had been asked to strictly comply with the aforementioned Rule 961. 4. It has further been contended that in a recent decision the Calcutta High Court has also disposed of a similar writ application, a copy whereof is contained in Annexure C to the counter-affidavit. 5. Rule 961 aforementioned reads thus :- Delivery of perishables in absence railway.receipt and way-bill.-- (a) When consignments of perishables i. s received without connected parcel way-bills and their delivery s claimed without waybills and their delivery is claimed without presentation of the railway receipt, delivery should not be granted until the person claiming delivery deposits the value of consignments with the railway at market rate. (b)On collection of the value of consignments, a money receipt in Form Com/M-2 should be issued, separately for each consignment, indicating full particulars as" to the number of packages, marks, description, serial number of entry and folio number of the delivery book. (c)When the original railway receipt or a certified true copy of the parcel way-bill duly stamped with the station name of the for warding station is produced and the consignment is properly connected, the Station Master should refund the deposit money to the person who deposited it or to his authorised agent on collection of the original money receipt. If the money receipt is lost, rotund of deposit may be allowed on execution of stamped Indemnity Note. The partys acknowledgment for the amount refunded should be taken on the back of the payees foil of money receipt as well as on the back of its Record portion. Full particulars of the parcel way-bill with which the consignment is connected should be shown on the face of both the foils of the money receipt under signature of the Station Master. Full particulars of the parcel way-bill with which the consignment is connected should be shown on the face of both the foils of the money receipt under signature of the Station Master. The railway receipt of the certified copy of the parcel way-bill should, be pasted with theRecord foil of the money receipt. The Payees portion of the money receipt should be treated as a voucher and sent to the Cashier duly entered in the cash remittance note. (d) The amount deposited in such cases should be accounted for in the cash book for parcels, luggage, etc., under a separate column. Deposits of unconnected perishables delivered on Indemnity Note, and special debit taken in the balance-sheet under the head" Deposit against unconnected perishables delivered on Indemnity Note. Credit for the amount refunded would automatically taken in the balance-sheet under the head vouchers. (e) The record of deposits and refunds should be maintained in a manuscript register in the form appearing at Appendix IX/D which must be posted separately for each month in duplicate, by carbon process. At the beginning of every month, all outstanding items of the previous month against which refund has not been granted should be brought forward and posted in the register. At the end of the mouth, the total of amounts" deposited and refunded will be struck separately, and a summary in form at Appendix IX/E showing the previous outstandings, deposits collected during the month as well as the amount refunded and amount of deposits for outstanding consignments will be prepared and submitted to the Traffic Accounts Office along with the pencil copy of theregister. 6. The aforementioned rule has evidently been issued by way of an exception as ordinarily, a consignee entitled to obtain delivery of goods only on presentation of railway receipts. It is stated that market rate is fixed by competent authority on actual verification of day-to-day of the market rate involved. It is also well-known that a railway receipt is a negotiable instrument and thus while taking delivery of possession of the consignment, the railway receipts have to be surrendered. 7. It is stated that market rate is fixed by competent authority on actual verification of day-to-day of the market rate involved. It is also well-known that a railway receipt is a negotiable instrument and thus while taking delivery of possession of the consignment, the railway receipts have to be surrendered. 7. It may be that a practice has developed to furnish indemnity bond but in our opinion, Rule 961 aforementioned being absolutely clear and unambiguous, the petitioners cannot be said to have derived any legal right to obtain a writ of or in the nature of mandamus, as has been sought for only on the basis of practice in derogation of a statutory rule. The officers of the railway administration as also the consignors and the consignee are bound by the statutory rules framed for that purpose. The Calcutta High Court also in a similar situation has passed the following orders :- Upon hearing the submissions of the parties this application is disposed of with a direction that if the consignee fails to surrender the Railway Receipt within ten days or fails to execute a fresh indemnity note in respect of any consignment, the Station Master may refuse the delivery on the basis of a general indemnity bond in respect of the consignment. This writ application is thus disposed of without any order as to costs. Although, in the aforementioned order, no reason has been assigned, but we agree with the operative portion of the aforementioned order. 8 In this situation, the petitioners are not entitled to any relief from this Court. However, keeping in view the serious nature of the allegations made by the petitioners, we hope and trust that an enquiry in the matter shall be made by the Divisional Railway Manager, Danapur Division, who shall see to it that the prevailing malpractice, if any, are stopped forthwith. The Railway Administration, as a carrier of goods has to act reasonably and fairly and in that dealings with the consignors and consignees they must see to it that malpractice of any nature is not encouraged. 9. This application is dismissed with the aforementioned observations. There shall, however, be no orders as to costs.