JUDGMENT The petitioner has by this petition prayed that Annexure-R5 dated 20.4.1993 (No. 16/93) may be quashed and respondent Railway Administration may be directed to decide the case of the petitioner in accordance with the provision of section 104 of the Indian Railways Act, 1989. Petitioner M/s Diamond Cements is a Company with limited liability, incorporated and registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. The petitioner Company has established a modern million ton/p.a. capacity of split location cement plant having its clinkering plant at village Narsinggarh and grinding and packing plant at village Imlai. Both the plants are situated in District Damoh in Madhya Pradesh. The Company has installed a Railway siding at about 3-1/2 kilo meters from Damoh Railway Station notified as DDSG siding and it has invested about Rs. 1,60 crore in the installation of DDSG siding. The siding deals with inward and out word traffic which needs movement by Railway. For transporting cement, the petitioner places its indents for covered wagons with the Railways. On supply of the same, the consignment is loaded for the destination station. At times when the Railway Administration is short of covered wagons, it places open wagons rake for loading. Whenever the consignment of cement is loaded in open wagons rake, it is covered by tarpaulin tied with ropes so as to avoid any damage, destruction of the cement consignment. Tarpaulins used for covering the consignments are to be provided by the consignor as the Railway Administration does not have sufficient tarpaulins. As a result, the Railway decided to give 6% concession in freight rate when the tarpaulins are supplied by the consignor. Notification in this respect was published first granting 6% concession in the freight rate, which is on record as Annexure-A1. Subsequent notification in this regard have been placed on record as Annexures-A2, A3, A4 and A5. Notification Annex.-A5 is dated 20.4.1993. The petitioner is aggrieved by notification dated 20.4.1993 Annex.-A5. It is alleged that earlier notifications were issued in terms of the Indian Railways Act, 1890 but now the Railways Act, 1989 has come into force and section 104 of the Act of 1989 which is relevant reads as under :- 104. Extent of liability in respect of goods carried in open wagon. It is alleged that earlier notifications were issued in terms of the Indian Railways Act, 1890 but now the Railways Act, 1989 has come into force and section 104 of the Act of 1989 which is relevant reads as under :- 104. Extent of liability in respect of goods carried in open wagon. -- Where any goods, which, under ordinary circumstances, would be carried in covered wagons and would be liable to damage, if carried otherwise, are with the consent of the consignor, recorded in the forwarding note, carried in open wagon, the responsibility of Railway Administration for destruction, damage or deterioration which may arise only by reason of the goods being so carried, shall be one-half of the amount of liability for such destruction, damage or deterioration determined under this Chapter." Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in terms of section 104 of the Act of 1989, the petitioner in entitled to 50% of damage in case the goods carried by open wagon rake suffer the loss. It is submitted that on account of notification Annexure-A5, no amount of damage is paid to the consignor due to damage to the goods carried in the open wagon rake and therefore the notification Annexure-A5 is liable to be quashed and the Railway Administration may be directed to pay 50% of damages in terms of sec. 104 of the Act of 1989. We have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record. As a matter of fact, the notification Annexure-A5 clearly lays down that it is an offer to the consignor that in case he wants to avail of the facility of concession in the freight rate, then in that case he would not be entitled to any damages in terms of section 104 of the Act of 1989. Notification Annexure-A5 read as under :- "C/636/R/142/V of 13.4.1993. Concession of 6% in freight rates for cement and chemical manures division 'A' and 'B' loaded in block rakes of open wagons as notified vide para 11 of IRCA/LRA No. 6 of 1992 (goods) has been extended also to chemical manures division 'c' from 1.4.1993 to 31.3.1994 without any change in other terms and conditions. It should be made clear to the parties who want to avail of this rebate that they will not be entitled to claim for damages arising out of carriage in open wagons. It should be made clear to the parties who want to avail of this rebate that they will not be entitled to claim for damages arising out of carriage in open wagons. This rebate is however not to be given for rock phosphate and ground phosphate." It is open for the petitioner to book his goods in open wagon rake if he so chooses and in that case, he will be entitled to 6% concession in the freight rate and will not be entitled to any other damages. Section 104 of the Act of 1989 says that if the goods are carried otherwise with the consent of the consignor in the open wagon, responsibility of the Railway Administration for damage will be one-half of the amount of liability for such destruction, damage or deterioration determined under Chapter XI. Thus, it is open for the consignor to choose either of the options. If the consignor wants to have the benefit of 6% concession in the freight rate, then he shall not be entitled to any compensation in terms of loss incurred by him on account of damage to the goods. As against this, if the consignor does not want to have the benefit of 6% concession, then of course he can have the benefit of provisions of S. 104 of the Act of 1989 covering responsibility of Railway Administration to the extent of 50% damages suffered by the goods. The consignor is not entitled to avail of both the benefits together. Option is with the consignor and we do not find any reason to interfere with these two options which are available to the consignor. The two situations are different and it is open for the consignor to choose one of them. 7. There is no merit in the petition. The same is dismissed but without any order as to costs. Security amount, if any, be refunded to the petitioner.