JUDGMENT : 1. Prescription of ‘demurrage’ for unloading and removing goods from Railway wagons after the ‘free hours’ stipulated, that too, by enhancing the rate to ‘six times’ of the normal rate specified, depending upon the duration, is under challenge in these Writ Petitions. 2. The main ground of challenge is that, issuance of the relevant proceedings by the concerned officer of the Railways, is contrary to the mandate under S.30/31 of the Indian Railways Act 1989, as the power to revise the rate of fares in respect of passengers/goods including demurrage, is upon the Central Government and that the said power has not been delegated to anybody else. On filing counter affidavit and such other proceedings (also producing copies of the relevant orders passed by the Railway Board) enabling such exercise, the said orders have also been subjected to challenge, by causing the Writ Petitions to be amended. It is contended that there cannot be any ‘delegated delegation’, as the impugned orders are not issued by the competent authority; that the said proceedings are not in conformity with the ‘Rules of Business’ and that they cannot be considered as orders passed by the Central Government, who is the competent authority shown under Sections 30 and 31 of the Indian Railways Act, 1989. 3. W.P.(C) No. 13271 of 2011 is taken up as the lead case and the parties and proceedings are referred to, as given in the said Writ Petition, for convenience of reference. A detailed counter affidavit was filed from the part of the respondents and later, pursuant to the amendment of the Writ Petition, an additional counter affidavit also came to be filed, whereupon the petitioners have chosen to file a reply affidavit as well. Coming to the factual position with reference to the cause of action, the petitioners are the manufactures/dealers of Cement and such other commodities, transporting the goods in bulk quantity, making use of the service/facility provided by the Railways in this regard. The case of the petitioners is that, they have to depend heavily upon the wagons provided by the Railways for transporting the goods from one corner to the other, in the country. On reaching the goods at the destination, agents are deployed for clearing the goods, who make necessary arrangements. The case of the petitioners is that, they have to depend heavily upon the wagons provided by the Railways for transporting the goods from one corner to the other, in the country. On reaching the goods at the destination, agents are deployed for clearing the goods, who make necessary arrangements. The grievance in all these cases stands confined to the impugned orders passed by the authorities of the Railways coming under the ‘Palakkad Division’ and nobody in the Trivandrum Division (of the ‘two’ Divisions in Kerala) has got any such case. 4. The goods being transported as above, are to be cleared within the specified time, failing which, demurrage is to be satisfied, fixed as Rs.75/- per wagon earlier, which came to be subsequently enhanced to Rs.100/- per wagon. It is contended that, in most of the Railway Stations under the Palakkad Division, there is no sufficient lighting in the Goods Sheds, nor is there any facility for toilet, washing and such other measures. There is no light inside the wagons as well, and as such, it is difficult for the petitioners to get the entire goods unloaded within the ‘free time’, more so, when the wagons reach the destination late in the evening/night. That apart, the petitioners are not in a position to engage workers of their choice, as the premises of the Railway Station/Goods Shed are notified areas under the Kerala Headload Workers Act/Scheme, by virtue of which, loading and unloading operations have to be carried out only by deploying the headload workers registered under the Act/Scheme, made available through the concerned authorities under the said enactment. It is pointed out that, such workers are available only from 8.30 a.m. to 5.30 p.m. and they refuse to work thereafter, by virtue of which, unloading of the goods from the wagons get stalled/delayed. The petitioners do not have any control over the said workers governed under the Kerala Headload Workers Act/Scheme and as such, eventhough it is stipulated that the working hours for carrying out loading/unloading activities in the Goods Sheds is from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m., much of the time gets wasted, for no fault on the part of the petitioners. It is pointed out that the Headload workers hesitate to work on National/State holidays and on Sundays. It is pointed out that the Headload workers hesitate to work on National/State holidays and on Sundays. Further, no proper and prompt time schedule is maintained by the Railways and that wagons reach the destination, mostly without notice and that too, at odd hours. As a natural consequence, the petitioners are compelled to satisfy demurrage as demanded by the Railway authorities, and going by the relevant norms prescribed in this regard, even if the unloading activity is to be completed only from one wagon (out of 21 or 42), and it gets beyond the ‘free time’, demurrage has to be paid for all the wagons, irrespective of the fact that the unloading has been done from the other wagons already. 5. Without any regard to the above scenario, the 4th respondent issued Ext. P4 communication dated 28.4.11 (similar communications by other concerned authorities in respect of other Goods Sheds at different places as borne by Ext. P5 to P10), intimating enhancement of the penal demurrage charges to Rs.300/- per wagon, per hour, between two to four hours after the expiry of the ‘free hours’ and a maximum of Rs.600/-, beyond four hours. The above communications are stated as issued based on Ext. P11 Rates Circular No. 74/2005 dated 19.12.2005 and Corrigendum dated 17.1.2008 issued by the Railway Board and signed by the Joint Director, Traffic Commercial (Rates) - the 13th respondent. Ext. P12 is the consequential notification dated 28.12.2005 issued by the 14th respondent. The said proceedings are under challenge in these Writ Petitions; on various grounds, including that the power to fix/alter/enhance demurrage charges comes exclusively within the domain of the Central Government, by virtue of S.30/31 of the Indian Railways Act 1989 and that the other respondents do not have any power or authority in this regard. It is in the said circumstances, that the petitioners have approached this Court seeking to set aside the impugned proceedings and to declare that none of the respondents, other than the Central Government, does have any power or authority to require the petitioners, if occasion arises, to pay penal demurrage charges beyond Rs.100/- per wagon; simultaneously seeking for issuance of a writ of mandamus, restraining the concerned respondents from levying penal demurrage charges beyond Rs.100/- per wagon. Almost similar pleadings/grounds/prayers have been raised by the petitioners in the connected cases as well. 6. Almost similar pleadings/grounds/prayers have been raised by the petitioners in the connected cases as well. 6. The third respondent has filed a detailed counter affidavit, referring to various provisions of law and contending that the challenge raised against the impugned proceedings, for the alleged want of power/authority, is absolutely without any basis and that their idea and understanding is quite wrong and misconceived. Referring to the provisions of The Indian Railways Act 1890, The Railways Board Act 1905, The Indian Railways Act 1989 and the notifications issued under the relevant enactments as above, it is asserted from the part of the respondents/Railways, that the Indian Railways stand on a different footing than the other departments of the Central Government and that power of the Central Government stands already transferred to the Railway Board. The ‘Organizational Hierarchy’ has been projected with reference to the relevant facts and figures, contending that, as far as the Institution of Railways is concerned, ‘Board’ is the ultimate authority, which is headed by a Chairman, who happens to be the Principal Secretary to the Ministry of Railways. By virtue of division of labour/segregation of work arrangement, ‘six’ different Members of the Board are assigned separate tasks and the field of Rates/Revision/Demurrages and such incidental aspects come within the purview of the Member (Traffic). 7. Referring to Ext. P11 Rates Circular 74/2005 dated 19.12.2005 and the Corrigendum dated 17.1.2008, it is pointed out that, it has been issued by none other than the ‘Railway Board’, which occupies the same position as of the Central Government, as discernible from the ‘Heading’ itself and also by virtue of the relevant provisions of law, as mentioned above, enabling the concerned authority of the Railways, to have issued the relevant orders/proceedings. It is stated that such proceedings were necessitated to avoid congestion and to make available sufficient number of wagons, by stipulating payment of penal demurrage charges for retention of wagons beyond the ‘free time’, at a progressive rate. It is stated that such proceedings were necessitated to avoid congestion and to make available sufficient number of wagons, by stipulating payment of penal demurrage charges for retention of wagons beyond the ‘free time’, at a progressive rate. With reference to the counter affidavit and the additional counter affidavit (filed pursuant to the amendment of the Writ Petition), it is pointed out that, it has come to the notice of the Railways, that many of the parties like the petitioners are simply keeping their goods in the wagons, without being unloaded on time, paying paltry charges towards demurrages, instead of taking the goods to be stored in a godown, for which much higher rent is payable. It is also the intention of some of the unscrupulous traders, to create scarcity in the market by keeping the goods, particularly, the essential commodities including food grains and the items like Cement/Steel, keeping the same in the wagons without disclosing the arrival of wagons, make unlawful bargain with intent to procure much higher sale price and release the goods in the market thereafter. This course is being pursued at the cost of the Railways, who do not have sufficient number of wagons or space/premises to be spared. 8. By virtue of delayed unloading of the goods, the wagons get accumulated and as such, the Railways find it difficult to redeploy the wagons for transporting goods, which include the essential commodities and thus fail in serving the public at large. It was to meet the said situation, that the impugned orders/proceedings were issued to compel the persons like the petitioners to clear the goods within the ‘free time’ itself, or at the earliest opportunity, with liability to satisfy demurrage at progressive rates, depending upon the time taken. It is stated that, there is absolutely nothing arbitrary or illegal in this regard and that the decision taken by the Board leading to issuance of Ext. P11 is only a ‘Policy decision’, that too, well within the powers of the Board/authorities in this regard. It is stated that, there is absolutely nothing arbitrary or illegal in this regard and that the decision taken by the Board leading to issuance of Ext. P11 is only a ‘Policy decision’, that too, well within the powers of the Board/authorities in this regard. It is further pointed out that, there is no pith or substance in the contention raised by the petitioners that no workers will be available to work at evening/night, in view of the provisions under the Headload Workers Act & Scheme, as ‘Section 10’ of the said Act itself provides for deployment of workers after 7 p.m. till 7 a.m, subject to payment of overtime wages, as specified. Similarly, arrangement of sufficient workers from appropriate sources in accordance with law and procurement of sufficient means of conveyance, are the lookout of the petitioners and that Ext. P11 Board Order, which is applicable throughout India, cannot be varied or modified, just to cater to the undue demand/requirement of the petitioners, with reference to the Kerala Headload Workers Act, applicable within the State. It is brought to the notice of this Court that, in appropriate cases, when the Railways find that the grievance of the parties is genuine, resulting delay in unloading, the matter is being dealt with on a ‘case to case study basis’ and total waiver is being effected in some cases; modification of the quantum is being effected in some cases and rejection of claim for waiver is being ordered in other appropriate cases. This being the position, it is always open for the petitioners, if aggrieved and if they have got a genuine case, to file a petition for ‘waiver’ by virtue of enabling provisions [Clauses 1102 and 1103 of the Indian Railway Code for Traffic (Commercial Department)] and if the decision goes against them, they are still at liberty to pursue the matter by way of ‘appeal’ as provided under Clause 1104 of the Code. 9. Mr. George Jacob Jose led the arguments on behalf of the petitioners, while the version of the Railways was put forth by Mr. James Kurien and also by Mr. C.S. Dias, both Standing Counsel for the Railways. 10. The primary question to be considered is, whether the concerned authorities, who issued the impugned proceedings were competent to have issued the same, by virtue of the mandate under S.30 and 31 of the Indian Railways Act, 1989. James Kurien and also by Mr. C.S. Dias, both Standing Counsel for the Railways. 10. The primary question to be considered is, whether the concerned authorities, who issued the impugned proceedings were competent to have issued the same, by virtue of the mandate under S.30 and 31 of the Indian Railways Act, 1989. 11. It is stated that the ‘Indian Railways’ having nearly 65000 kms of railway network, is the 4th largest in the world and stands at top in Asia. Indian Railways is cited as the biggest employer in the country and it consists of, as many as seventeen different zones, with the Railway Board at the helm of the affairs. Because of the acute necessity to connect different places in the British India and tremendous increase in the infrastructure development with reference to rail connectivity, the laws relating to Railways had to be codified, which gave rise to the Indian Railways Act 1989. Subsequently, the necessity to constitute ‘Railway Board’ was found extremely essential and thus came the Railway Board Act 1905. By virtue of S.2(a) of the Railway Board Act, all the powers vested with the Central Government came to be transferred to the Railway Board and the Board was maintaining the administration as above. By virtue of the very distinguished status of the Railways and the requirements to have had a different treatment, unlike any other Ministry, the Railway is having a ‘separate Budget’ of its own, and the functions to be discharged by the Central Government, in so far as the Railway Ministry is concerned, are being undertaken and discharged by the Railway Board. 12. It is in the above background, that the issue involved in this case has to be examined, as to the correctness and sustainability of rate enhancement with regard to penal demurrages, as provided vide Exts. P4 to P10/P11. The definition of the some of the terms, like ‘demurrage’, ‘wharfage’ and ‘rate’, as they appear under S.2 of the Indian Railways Act, 1989 are worthwhile to be referred to, which are extracted below: 2(11) “demurrage” means the charge levied for the detention of any rolling stock after the expiry of free time, if any, allowed for such detention. 2(35) “rate” includes any fare, freight or any other charge for the carriage of any passenger or goods. 2(35) “rate” includes any fare, freight or any other charge for the carriage of any passenger or goods. 2(41) “wharfage” means the charge levied on goods for not removing them from the railway after the expiry of the free time for such removal; 13. Since the main dispute with regard to the power and competency of the authorities of the Railways, to have issued the impugned proceedings, stating that, it is contrary to the mandate of S.30 & 31 of the Indian Railways Act, 1989 (where the authority is stated as vested with the Central Government), this Court finds it fit and proper to have the above provisions as well, to be extracted below, along with S.32 of the said Act. 30. Powers to fix rates - (1) The Central Government may, from time to time, by general or special order fix, for the carriage of passengers and goods, rates for the whole or any part of the railway and different rates may be fixed for different classes of goods and specify in such order the conditions subject to which such rates shall apply. (2) The Central Government may, by a like order, fix the rates of any other charges incidental to or connected with such carriage including demurrage and wharfage for the whole or any part of the railway and specify in the order the conditions subject to which such rates shall apply. 31. Power to classify commodities or alter rates.-The Central Government shall have power to- (a) classify or reclassify any commodity for the purpose of determining the rates to be charged for the carriage of such commodities; and (b) increase or reduce the class rates and other charges. 32. Power of railway administration to charge certain rates.-- Notwithstanding anything contained in this Chapter, a railway administration may, in respect of the carriage of any commodity and subject to such conditions as may be specified,- (a) quote a station to station rate; (b) increase or reduce or cancel after due notice in the manner determined by the Central Government, a station to station rate, not being a station to station rate introduced in compliance with an order made by the Tribunal; (c) withdraw, alter or amend the conditions attached to a station to station rate other than conditions introduced in compliance with an order made by the Tribunal; and (d) charge any lump sum rate. 14. 14. Section 30 of the New Act (i.e. 1989 Act) is almost similar, as it was under S.29 of the Old Act (i.e., 1890 Act). But when it comes to the power to classify or reclassify commodities or to alter rates, as dealt with under S.42 of the Old Act (stating that the Central Government ‘alone’ shall have the power), the word “alone” came to be deleted, when the new Act (i.e. 1989 Act) came into force; wherein the said provision has been reproduced as S.31; which change appears to be by virtue of the development/change in circumstances occurred in the meanwhile. 15. Section 2 of the Indian Railways Board Act, 1905 reads as follows : “Investment of Railway Board with powers under Indian Railways Act, 1890 - The Central Government may by notification in the Official Gazette invest the Railway Board either absolutely or subject to conditions : (a) with all or any of the powers or functions of the [Central Government] under the Indian Railways Act, 1890 with respect to all or any railways, and (b) with the power of the officer referred to in S.47 of the said Act to make general rules for railways administered by the Government. By virtue of the above provision, it was open for the Central Government to have invested all or any power or functions of the Central Government under the Indian Railways Act 1890, by issuing necessary notification in the official gazette. The question is, whether any such notification, in so far as the power vested with the Government to have issued the relevant notification (under S.29 of the Old Act and under S.30 of the New Act), was ever issued. The answer to this question is discernible from the reference made by the Apex Court in this regard in Jagjit Cotton Textile Mills v. Chief Commercial Superintendent N.R. & Ors. ( (1998) 5 SCC 126 ). 16. The validity of R.161(a)of the Indian Railways Conference Association Rules was challenged as inconsistent with S.53(1) of the Indian Railways Act 1980, which was considered and repelled by the Apex Court, holding that, the Rule was never ultra vires to the Act. The relevant provisions of the Railways Act 1890 and the Railway Board Act 1905, the relevant amendment Acts and the Railway Act 1989 were subjected to meticulous analysis therein. The relevant provisions of the Railways Act 1890 and the Railway Board Act 1905, the relevant amendment Acts and the Railway Act 1989 were subjected to meticulous analysis therein. It was in the course of such exercise, that a declaration was made by the Apex Court, that S.73 of the Railway Act 1989 providing for recovery of penal charges from the consignees was neither arbitrary nor unreasonable. The Apex Court observed in paragraph 25 of the said verdict, that notifications of the Central Government delegating its power under S.54 and 29 to the Railway Board were important. It was held by the Bench that the notification of the Government of India (Nos. 14 - 21, No. 81) dated 24.3.1905 published under S.2 of the Indian Railways Board Act 1905 and issued in the name of the Governor General showed that, the Railway Board was invested with powers of the Central Government under various provisions including S.54 of the Old Act. It was further noted by the Apex Court, that a further notification bearing No. T.R.C./1079/69/11 dated 8.10.1969 was issued by the Central Government under S.2 of the Indian Railway Board Act, whereby the power of the Central Government under S.29 of the Old Act was delegated to the Railway Board and the said notification was published in the Gazette of India dated 18.10.1969. A true copy of the Gazette notification has been made available for perusal of this Court from the part of respondents (with copy to the petitioners), which reads as follows : “No.TCR/1078/69/11-In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 2 of the Indian Railways Board Act, 1905 (4 of 1905), the Central Government hereby invests the Railway Board with all the powers and functions of the Central Government under Section 29 and 42 of the Indian Railways Act, 1890 (9 of 1890).” Since the Railway Board was constituted as per the Railway Board Act, 1905 and since all the powers of the Central Government including under S.29, were transferred to the Railway Board, pursuant to the relevant notification issued in this regard, as taken note of by the Apex Court with specific reference to the Indian Railway Act 1890 (old Act), The Railway Board Act 1905 and The Indian Railways Act 1989 (new Act), this Court finds that the challenge raised by the petitioners as to the alleged lack of power, competence and authority to have issued Ext. P11 fails. 17. Another important aspect to be noted is that, the pleadings and prayers in the Writ Petitions are moulded by the petitioners, more confining their challenge against Exts. P5 to P10 issued by the concerned authorities of the particular Division (Palakkad Division) of the Railways, contending that, power of the Central Government was not delegated further and hence there could not be any delegated delegation under any circumstances. The principle behind the maxim ‘delegatus non potest delegare’ is pressed into service, also placing reliance on the decisions rendered by the Apex Court reported in Director General, E.S.I. & Anr. v. T. Abdul Razak ((1996) SCC 708)and A.K. Roy & Anr. v. State of Punjab & Ors. ( (1986) 4 SCC 326 ).Whether there is any delegated delegation in the instant case is the matter to be considered. 18. The fact remains that all the powers of the Central Government, as held by the Apex Court in (1998) 5 SCC 126 (cited supra - with reference to all the three Acts) stood transferred to the Railway Board and it is the Board, who has issued Ext. P11 Rate Circular bearing No. TC-I/2005/201/2 dated 19.12.2005 and Corrigendum Circular dated 17.1.2008. The fact remains that all the powers of the Central Government, as held by the Apex Court in (1998) 5 SCC 126 (cited supra - with reference to all the three Acts) stood transferred to the Railway Board and it is the Board, who has issued Ext. P11 Rate Circular bearing No. TC-I/2005/201/2 dated 19.12.2005 and Corrigendum Circular dated 17.1.2008. It is only on pointing out the above aspects from the part of the respondents, that the petitioners sought to amend the Writ Petitions, also challenging the said Board Orders as well. In other words, there was no challenge for the petitioners with regard to Ext. P11 Rate Circular dated 19.12.2005 and the Corrigendum Circular dated 17.1.2008 for more than ‘six years’, till the above Writ Petitions were got amended, seeking to challenge the said proceedings as well. The course pursued by the petitioners is highly belated and the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under Art.226 is not liable to be invoked in respect of such stale cause of action, particularly in the light of the law declared by the Apex Court in Rabindranath Bose v. Union of India ( AIR 1970 SC 470 ) holding that the remedy under Art.226 is not intended for the parties, who are simply sleeping over armed chairs, unmindful of their rights and liberties. 19. Coming to the question whether there is any delegated delegation, Rate Circular No. 74/2005 dated 19.12.2005 (part of Ext. P11 - w.e.f. 01.01.2006) issued by the Railway Board makes it crystal clear in the ‘opening paragraph’, that the decision has been taken by the Board itself to revise the instruction regarding permissible ‘free time’ for loading and unloading of wagons and as to the rates of demurrage charges, wharfage charges and cleaning charges. Clause 3.3 of the said Circular issued by the Railway Board reads as follows : “3.3. In case excessive congestion takes place at any terminal/steel plant, CCM/COM/DRM can increase the demurrage rates, even at progressively increasing rate subject to a maximum of six times of the prevalent rate. This penal demurrage rates should be implemented only after giving wide publicity and due notice of 48 hours and should be applicable for the notified period”. In case excessive congestion takes place at any terminal/steel plant, CCM/COM/DRM can increase the demurrage rates, even at progressively increasing rate subject to a maximum of six times of the prevalent rate. This penal demurrage rates should be implemented only after giving wide publicity and due notice of 48 hours and should be applicable for the notified period”. From the above, it is evident that such a stipulation was made by the Board to meet the situation resulted because of excessive congestion at any terminal, enabling the CCM (Chief Commercial Manager)/COM(Chief Operations Manager)/DRM (Divisional Railway Manager), to increase the demurrage rates on a progressive basis, subject to a maximum of ‘six times’ of the prevalent rate, after giving wide publicity and due notice of 48 hours. Thus, the specific parameters to be followed and whether any excessive congestion was taking place at a particular terminal/steel plant, is a fact which has to be considered and assessed by the CCM/COM/DRM and it was in the said circumstances, that appropriate extent of demurrage was permitted to be fixed, within the pre-set parameters, subject to a maximum of ‘6 times’ as mentioned above, as clearly laid down by the Railway Board. How the figures are to be worked out, are also clearly dealt with under various heads. Similar progressive rates of increase in respect of ‘wharfage charges’ are also mentioned under Clause 5.4. Later, the prevalent demurrage charges of RRs.50/- per 8 wheeled wagon, per hour or part of an hour, for detention beyond the ‘free time’ for all ‘steel plants’ and the rate of Rs.75/- for ‘other than steel plants’, were subsequently modified by the Corrigendum to the Rate Circular, as per the proceedings No. T.C I/2005/201/2 dated 17.1.08, stipulating that, the rate for both ‘steel plants’ as well ‘other than steel plants’, shall be Rs.100/- per 8 wheeled wagon, per hour or part of an hour, beyond the permissible ‘free time’, which was brought into effect from 1.2.2008. It was also mentioned in both the above Circulars, that they were issued with concurrence of the Finance, Traffic and Transportation Directorates in the Ministry of Railways (Clause 9 of the former Circular 19.12.2005 and the last sentence of the latter Circular dated 17.1.2008). This being the position, the consequential proceedings issued by the concerned respondents, strictly in terms of Ext. This being the position, the consequential proceedings issued by the concerned respondents, strictly in terms of Ext. P11 Rates Circular, after assessing the need of hour with regard to the congestion felt, also mentioning the specified period for which the penal demurrage was to be paid, are perfectly within the four walls of law and there is no instance of any delegated delegation. 20. In the course of proceedings, a contention was put up from the part of the petitioners, that even if Exts. P11 issued by the Railway Board is valid, the rate increase now ordered as per Exts. P4 to P10 is not by the concerned authority mentioned in Clause 3.3 of Ext. P1 Circular. It is also stated that the 4th respondent is incompetent to have issued any such Circular, not being an authority mentioned in Clause 3.3 of Ext. P11 and that the subsequent approval by the DRM, cannot make the order as the one issued by the DRM. The respondents have asserted in the pleadings, that the order has been issued by the ‘DRM himself’ and that they are ready to produce the file. Accordingly, during the course of arguments, the original file was produced by the learned standing counsel for the Railways. On perusal of the file on 15.1.2014, it was revealed that, it was after considering various facts, figures and recommendation as to the necessity to have issued appropriate orders, that the DRM himself passed the order in the original file. It was based on the said order, that the position was communicated by the officers like the 4th respondent as per Exts. P4 to P10 (and such other orders, as produced in the concerned Writ Petitions). The original file was returned to the learned standing counsel then and there and copy of the relevant proceedings was made available to the learned counsel for the petitioners as well. In the said circumstances, this Court finds that the original order has been passed by the designated authority as specified in Ext. P11 (i.e., by the DRM) and as such, the impugned orders are not those passed by the concerned respondent on their own motion, but are virtually consequential proceedings, pursuant to the orders passed by the DRM. This Court finds that the plea of ‘delegated delegation’ raised by the petitioners in the said circumstances does not hold any water at all. 21. This Court finds that the plea of ‘delegated delegation’ raised by the petitioners in the said circumstances does not hold any water at all. 21. In view of the findings of this Court with reference to the declaration made by the Apex Court in (1998) 5 SCC 126 (cited supra), that power of the Central Government already stands transferred to the Railway Board by virtue of the relevant notification issued in terms of S.2 (a) of the Railway Board Act 1905, the case set up by the petitioners with reference to Articles 53 and 77 and the reliance sought to be placed on the decision rendered by the Apex Court in State of Uttaranchal & Anr. v. Sunil Kumar Vaish & Ors. ( (2011) 8 SCC 670 )does not gather any momentum. 22. It is relevant to note that, acute wagon shortage is felt by the Railways, mainly because of the detention of wagons at different Goods Sheds and Stations, beyond the expected time limit. Priorities are to be weighed in the matter of allotment of wagons, depending upon the nature of the commodities, the availability/scarcity and the larger public interest involved. If the petitioners want to make use of the mode of transport provided by the Railways, it is of course for them to abide by the terms and conditions under the relevant enactment/rules/circulars/notifications and also the general conditions of contract entered into from time to time, which includes rates/demurrage as well. The petitioners are not justified in blaming the Railway Administration with reference to the scarcity of workers or the local enactments, particularly the Kerala Headload Workers’ Act, to wriggle out of the liability to satisfy demurrage charges payable in terms of the relevant proceedings issued under the Central enactment and applicable throughout the country. Even otherwise, Section 10 of the Kerala Headload Workers’ Act clearly stipulates that, service of workers can be availed between 7 p.m and 7 a.m, subject to satisfaction of overtime payment. Even otherwise, Section 10 of the Kerala Headload Workers’ Act clearly stipulates that, service of workers can be availed between 7 p.m and 7 a.m, subject to satisfaction of overtime payment. If no sufficient number of workers are made available by the competent authority under the Statute, it is always open for the petitioners to approach this Court for appropriate relief, impleading the concerned authorities of the Headload Workers Act and the State Government, seeking for appropriate relief, so as to consider whether the petitioners could be permitted to deploy persons of their choice, to meet the deficit, if the authorities under The Kerala Headload Workers Act/Scheme fail to provide sufficient man power in this regard. In any view of the matter, this can never be a ground for interference by this Court, with regard to the ‘policy decision’ taken by the respondent/Railways, with a definite purpose as discussed above; which is never to generate revenue, but to compel persons like the petitioners to complete the loading and unloading activity within the specified time and make the wagons available for undertaking further transport of the goods, including essential commodities and thus in larger public interest. It is also settled law, that, when there is a conflict between public interest and private right/interest, the latter has to yield to the former. 23. Incidentally, it is pointed out from the part of the Railways that over the years, the Railway Administration has improved the infrastructure, including the unloading facilities. It is stated that Goods Sheds are provided with concrete unloading platforms, High mast lightings at various locations in the unloading area, sufficient rooms and toilets with washing facility for adequate labour force (based on the releasing capacity of the terminals), also providing for unloading the full rakes at one stretch with free movement of lorries without congestion. It is stated that only because of the lack of co-operation from the part of persons like the petitioners, under the pretext of non-availability of labour or lorries, that congestion is being created, which has to be remedied. It is also pointed out that, the Railway Administration has set up Advanced Information System (FOIS- Freight Operations Information System) network across the country, providing information regarding movement of rakes, on a ‘day-to-day’ basis, right from the time of despatch. It is also pointed out that, the Railway Administration has set up Advanced Information System (FOIS- Freight Operations Information System) network across the country, providing information regarding movement of rakes, on a ‘day-to-day’ basis, right from the time of despatch. It is open for the petitioners to make use of the facilities as above and organise the labour/conveyance, arranging sufficient men and machinery for timely release of the wagons. If the petitioners restrict their activity only between 8 a.m and 6 p.m, to avoid payment of overtime wages, they themselves have to be blamed in this regard. It is to be noted in this context that, there is no definite case for the petitioners that the respondents have not complied with the requirements contemplated under Ext.P11 Rate Circular before implementing the enhancement. The enhanced penal demurrage stipulated to be effected at a ‘progressive rate’, subject to a maximum of ‘six’ times of the prevailing rate, does not mean that ‘six’ times enhancement is implemented in every case, when unloading exercise extends beyond the ‘free time’. It is more in the nature of a ‘slab rate’, depending upon the facts and circumstances. Further, the enhancement is for a ‘specified period’, to deal with the particular situation, if any excessive congestion takes place at any terminal/steel plant and it is to be implemented only after vide publicity and due notice of 48 hours. Exts. P4 to P10 series proceedings reveal that they are dated 28.4.2011 and the rate increase was sought to be implemented for the period from 2.5.2011 to 31.7.2011, to speed up the release of inward wagons. Obviously, the said proceedings were sought to be implemented only after 48 hours and there is no specific case that there was not enough publicity and that any prejudice has been caused to the petitioners in this regard. 24. The correctness and sustainability of Ext.P11 Rate Circular issued by the Railway Board, particularly in para 3.3, providing for increase of demurrage rates, was subjected to challenge by the aggrieved parties before the Andhra Pradesh High Court as well, contending that, it was not in conformity with the mandate under S.13 of the Railway Act, 1989. The validity of the said Clause and the Circular was upheld by the Bench, as per the decision dated 6.5.2013 in Writ-C No.11168 of 2011 and connected cases. The validity of the said Clause and the Circular was upheld by the Bench, as per the decision dated 6.5.2013 in Writ-C No.11168 of 2011 and connected cases. The issues considered by the Bench were as given below: “1. Whether in exercise of power under Section 30 of the Act, 1989, Railway Board can impose penal demurrage/wharfage rates and the penal rate imposed by the Rates Circular Nos.74 of 2005 and 21 of 2007 are without jurisdiction. 2. Whether while fixing the rates under Section 30 of the Act, 1989 penal rates can be fixed by the Central Government. 3. Whether fixing of penal rate under the Rates Circular No.74 of 2005 and 21 of 2007 are arbitrary and violative of Art.14 of the Constitution. 4. Whether wide publicity and due notice of 48 hours is necessary before fixing any penal rates of demurrage/wharfage. 5. Whether wide publicity and due notice was given by the respondents before imposing the penal rates of demurrage/wharfage.” The plea set up by the petitioners was negated and judgment was rendered in favour of the Railways, also placing reliance on the decision rendered by the Apex Court in (1998) 5 SCC 126 (cited supra). Interference has been declined under similar circumstances, by the Karnataka High Court as well, as per the verdict rendered on 14.10.2011, in Writ Petition Nos. 33046 to 52 of 2010. 25. Considering the extent of penal demurrage sought to be levied as per the impugned proceedings at ‘progressive rates’ as mentioned herein before, the maximum is stipulated as ‘six times’ of the prevailing rate; i.e. Rs.100/wagon beyond the ‘free time’, for loading/unloading the goods. The term ‘demurrage’ used in the Indian Railways Act had come up for consideration before the Apex Court in The Trustees of the Port of Madras v. Aminchand Pyarilal ( AIR 1975 SC 1935 ).The observations made by the Apex Court in paragraph 28 are very relevant, as extracted below:- “28. There is a fundamental aspect of the fixation of rates which the High Court has overlooked. What is the object and purpose of the rates which the Board charges to the importer? Port Trusts do not do the business of warehousing goods and the rates which the Board charges for storage of goods are not levied as a means of collecting revenue. What is the object and purpose of the rates which the Board charges to the importer? Port Trusts do not do the business of warehousing goods and the rates which the Board charges for storage of goods are not levied as a means of collecting revenue. The Board is under a statutory obligation to render services of various kinds and those services have to be rendered not for the personal benefit of this or that importer but in the larger national interests. Congestion in the ports affects the free movement of ships and of essential goods. The scale of rates has therefore to be framed in a manner which will act both as an incentive and as a compulsion for the expeditious removal of the goods, from the transit area. Ships like wagons, have to be kept moving and that can happen only if there is pressure on the importer to remove the goods from the Board’s premises with the utmost expedition .......” The above principle is squarely applicable to the case in hand, in relation to the ‘Railways’ as well. As specifically pleaded by the respondents, prescription of enhanced demurrage charges, termed as penal demurrage charges, is not with an intent to generate revenue, but to compel the parties like the petitioners to complete the loading/unloading exercises within the stipulated time and to surrender the wagons for enabling the Railways to undertake further transport, catering to the need of others, who are standing in queue. This being the position, this Court finds that there is nothing arbitrary or illegal in prescribing the scale of rates and the challenge raised against the impugned orders can’t but fall down, having no legs to stand. 26. The fact that the Railways stand on a different footing, than other ministries in the Government, is sought to be substantiated also with reference to the mandate of S.80 of the Code of Civil Procedure. As per S.80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, prior notice of ‘two months’ is necessary, before institution of any Civil Suits against the Government or against the Public Officer in respect of any act purporting to be done by such Public Officer in an official capacity. Section 80(i)(a) specifies that, in the case of a suit against the Central Government, it has to be served to the Secretary to that Government, ‘except where it relates’ to Railways. Section 80(i)(a) specifies that, in the case of a suit against the Central Government, it has to be served to the Secretary to that Government, ‘except where it relates’ to Railways. Section 80(i)(b) specifies that, in the case of such a suit against the Central Government where it relates to the Railways, notice has to be served on the General Manager of that Railway. This being the position, there is no pith of substance in the contention raised by the petitioners, that the impugned proceedings, having not been issued by the Central Government or in the name of the Central Government, are liable to be intercepted and set aside. 27. With regard to the plea of the petitioners that a differential treatment has been given to the ‘Palakkad Division’, and hence quite arbitrary and discriminatory, it has to be borne in mind, that penal demurrage enhancement is ordered only by virtue of the ‘exigency of the situation’, that too for a specific period, to meet the need of the hour and to compel the parties to complete the operations and surrender the wagons on time, for deploying the said wagons for further transport. The delay in clearing the wagons adversely affects the Railways in maintaining punctuality with regard to the time schedule of Trains, more so, since the same track may have to be used in a High density-State like Kerala, particularly northern parts of the State and the same track may have to be used for both the Passenger trains as well as the Goods trains. The delayed unloading and the delayed surrender of wagons may result in delayed operation of the schedules, which in turn may adversely affect the travelling public as well. 28. The version put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the power transferred by the Central Government to the Railway Board was only till 1.7.1990 i.e., when the New Act (Indian Railways’ Act, 1989) came into existence and that, no new notification has been issued under the New Act, does not appear to be palatable, for the reasons already discussed hereinbefore. Transfer of the power/authority of the Central Government to the Railway Board, based on the notification issued under the relevant enactment, has already been considered by the Apex Court in (1998) 5 SCC 126 (cited supra), wherein reference has been made to by the three enactments, the Old Act of 1890, New Act of 1989 and also the Railway Board Act, 1905. It was after detailed discussion as above, that a positive declaration was made as to the transfer of power from the Central Government to the Railway Board, in turn, upholding the validity of the concerned Rules, which were under challenge. No inconsistency has been noted by the Apex Court between the ‘Old Act’ and the ‘New Act’ and both the Acts were considered along with the provisions of the Railway Board Act, 1905 in ( (1998) 5 SCC 126 )(cited supra). 29. In the above circumstances, this Court finds that the challenge raised by the petitioners against the orders impugned in these petitions is absolutely without any merit or bona fides. This Court does not find any tenable ground to call for interference. It is made clear that the respondents are free to proceed against the petitioners for realisation of the deficit amount, if any, which was intercepted in view of the interim orders passed by this Court in the concerned cases. Equally important is to make it clear that the petitioners are at liberty to seek for the benefit of ‘Waiver’ in appropriate cases, if justified, in terms of Clauses 1102 and 1103 of the Indian Railway Code for Traffic (Commercial Department) and pursue the matter further by way of Appeal, if necessary, by virtue of Clause 1104 of the said Code. If any such claim is mooted, it shall be independently considered on merits. Interference is declined and all the Writ Petitions are dismissed.