Judgment B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. Both these writ petitions arise out of the same order passed by the Inquiry Officer Shri Srinivas Mudgerikar, who is Respondent No. 2 in both these petitions. The facts briefly stated are: M/s. Goodearth Agro Chem Private Limited imported manganese ore from Indonesia. The cargo was handled by Shipping line – M/s. Trans Asian Shipping Services Private Limited. According to the carrier which transported cargo i.e. the Container Corporation of India Limited, there was mis-description. Instead of declaring cargo to be manganese ore, it was stated to be general cargo. It, therefore, imposed penalty. There was a previous petition before this Court and because of directions therein, Respondent No. 2 – Srinivas Mudgerikar was appointed as Inquiry Officer. He found M/s. Trans Asian Shipping Services Private Limited as also M/s. Goodearth Agro Chem Private Limited, jointly and severally liable to pay penalty. His reports/ order dated 10.09.2012 is questioned in both these matters. 2. Writ Petition No. 5299 of 2012 is filed by M/s. Goodearth Agro Chem Private Limited while Writ Petition No. 1018 of 2013 is filed by M/s. Trans Asian Shipping Services Private Limited. The Container Corporation of India Limited is Respondent No. 1 in both writ petitions. M/s. Trans Asian Shipping Services Private Limited has joined M/s. Goodearth Agro Chem Private Limited as Respondent No. 3 and Ministry of Railways as Respondent No. 4. M/s. Goodearth has arrayed M/s. Trans Asian Shipping Services Private Limited as Respondent No. 3 in this writ petition. The importer or owner M/s. Goodearth imported total nine containers of manganese ore from Indonesia which arrived at Nhava Sheva Port at Mumbai through Shipping Services mentioned supra. These containers have been further transported from that port to International Container Depot (ICD), Nagpur by Rail. The importer M/s. Goodearth had sought delivery at Nagpur. The transportation by Rail was undertaken by Respondent No. 1 – Container Corporation of India Limited. Forwarding note for that purpose was submitted by Shipping services declaring the commodity as “chips” (general cargo) instead of manganese ore. At the relevant time, manganese ore was a restricted commodity and could not have been carried by Rail. The first forwarding note was dated 05.11.2011 while the second forwarding note was dated 15.11.2011. The first batch arrived at ICD Nagpur on 10.11.2011 while the second batch arrived on 18.11.2011. At the relevant time, manganese ore was a restricted commodity and could not have been carried by Rail. The first forwarding note was dated 05.11.2011 while the second forwarding note was dated 15.11.2011. The first batch arrived at ICD Nagpur on 10.11.2011 while the second batch arrived on 18.11.2011. Shipping line then filed Bills of Lading with customs department with copy thereof to Container Corporation at ICD. It mentioned the commodity carried as Manganese ore. Accordingly, Container Corporation learnt about the correct nature of commodity. Railway Board's letter No.2008/TT-III/73/8 dated 01.07.2008 declared ores, minerals, coal and coke as restricted commodity for movement by railway container. Railway Circular No. 95 of 2006 specifies penalty in cases of false declaration of goods. Penalty is leviable four times the highest freight slab rate and it is over and above the freight charges already paid. The Container Corporation had transported goods subject to the said letter and circular. Because of penalty claimed by the Container Corporation, writ petition was filed before this Court vide Writ Petition No. 6116 of 2011 by M/s. Goodearth. This High Court on 13.01.2012 directed M/s. Goodearth to pay penalty for the entire amount and complete other formalities. When these developments and correspondence was going on, M/s. Goodearth filed Civil Application No. 287 of 2012 in that writ petition for initiating Contempt proceedings. Thereafter the containers were released to M/s. Goodearth because of orders in Writ Petition No. 1661 of 2011 dated 09.02.2012. Respondent No. 2 – General Manager of Container Corporation was directed to make inquiry. Accordingly, Respondent No. 2 after completing inquiry, submitted his report on 10.09.2012. Respondent No. 2 has found that the Railway administration and the Container Corporation have entered into Concession agreement and Railway Board's letter dated 01.07.2008 formed part of said agreement. The agreement was for a period of 20 years and as such the terms stipulated in Railway Board's letter remained valid for entire concession period of 20 years unless amended otherwise by Railway Board. Relying upon said letter and Railway Circular No. 95 of 2006, he applied his mind to the facts and found that there was mis-description by shipping line by mentioning cargo as chips (general cargo) instead of manganese ore. After completing inquiry, he held both the petitioners jointly and severally liable to pay penalty and other associated charges. Relying upon said letter and Railway Circular No. 95 of 2006, he applied his mind to the facts and found that there was mis-description by shipping line by mentioning cargo as chips (general cargo) instead of manganese ore. After completing inquiry, he held both the petitioners jointly and severally liable to pay penalty and other associated charges. He found that provisions of Sections 66 and 83 of Railways Act, 1989 enable Container Corporation to claim the same from M/s. Goodearth. He accordingly found penal charges payable at Rs.9,07,327.80. He also in addition recommended ground rent in respect of five containers from 10.11.2011 to 18.01.2012 and remaining four containers from 18.11.2011 to 18.01.2012. 3. Shri R.M. Bhangde, learned counsel appearing for M/s. Goodearth has submitted that M/s. Goodearth is only the consignee who steps into picture after goods reached ICD Nagpur. Shipping line was selected by the Company in Indonesia, which sold the manganese ore to M/s. Goodearth and hence M/s. Goodearth cannot be held jointly and severally liable for mis-description by Shipping services. He has taken us through the provisions of Sections 64, 66 and 83 of Railways Act, 1989, to demonstrate how the consignor or person in-charge of goods is made liable therein. The consignor was the company in Indonesia and Shipping services was acting at its instance and was in-charge of the cargo. He has invited attention to note in which false declaration or incorrect declaration has been alleged. He states that though on first page the description was incorrect, in later pages, commodity was clearly mentioned as manganese ore. All necessary documents & these pages were part of the forwarding note and hence there was no question of any intention to cheat or to obtain wrongful gain. The judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Cement Marketing Co. of India Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Indore & Ors., reported at (1980) 1 SCC 71, is pressed into service to urge that in the absence of necessary mental condition and as all relevant data was available on record, penalty proceedings were uncalled for and unsustainable. 4. Shri Moharir, learned counsel appearing for the Container Corporation has submitted that manganese ore could not have been transported at the relevant time through Railways and, therefore, ought to have been transported only by road in container trucks. 4. Shri Moharir, learned counsel appearing for the Container Corporation has submitted that manganese ore could not have been transported at the relevant time through Railways and, therefore, ought to have been transported only by road in container trucks. The said transportation by road would have cost M/s. Goodearth Rs.45,000/- per MT while Railway transport fare was only Rs.22,250 per MT. Thus, by giving incorrect description, M/s. Goodearth paid only half of the legally required transportation charges. There was collusion between shipping services and M/s. Goodearth with a view to secure wrongful gain. As such, in departmental inquiry, after giving them opportunity, a finding of fact has been arrived at. It is not erroneous or perverse and hence no interference is warranted in exercise of writ jurisdiction. He submits that Container Corporation recovers penalty for Railway Department and it is as per concession agreement between Railways and Container Corporation. The terms and conditions are implicit in contract entered between parties when manganese ore of M/s. Goodearth came to be transported to Nagpur. He points out that contract between company in Indonesia which sold manganese ore to an importer in India i.e. M/s. Goodearth as also M/s. Trans Asian Shipping Services Private Limited has not been produced on record and hence its terms and conditions cannot be looked into. Letter dated 08.11.2011 sent by Shipping Services to the Container Corporation is pressed into service to show that mis-description or mistake was within the knowledge of M/s. Trans Asian on that day itself i.e. prior to submission of forwarding note dated 15.11.2011 for remaining four containers. The reply affidavit is relied upon by him to urge that Container Corporation recovers penalty as Railways recover it from Container Corporation. He adds that shipping services is agent of M/s. Goodearth and hence imposing joint and several liability is legal and valid. 5. Mrs. Chandran, learned counsel with Shri Chopkar, learned counsel has assailed the order dated 10.09.2012 of Respondent No. 2 – Inquiry Officer in Writ Petition No. 1018 of 2013. She points out that restriction on transport of manganese ore through Railways has been lifted from 28.02.2014 without assigning any reasons. She submits that Writ Petition No. 1018 of 2013 was filed on 30.01.2013 and after this Court issued notice in it, Respondent No. 4 in Writ Petition No. 1018 of 2013 i.e. Railway Ministry has removed said ban. She points out that restriction on transport of manganese ore through Railways has been lifted from 28.02.2014 without assigning any reasons. She submits that Writ Petition No. 1018 of 2013 was filed on 30.01.2013 and after this Court issued notice in it, Respondent No. 4 in Writ Petition No. 1018 of 2013 i.e. Railway Ministry has removed said ban. She points out that before the Enquiry Officer shipping services has raised a finger on validity of restrictions on movement of coal, coke, ore and other minerals imposed by Railway Board and it is because of this challenge as also writ petition filed before this Court, having realized illegality in such restriction, Railways have withdrawn the same. She has invited our attention to provisions of Section 71 of Railways Act, 1989, to show that power has been given to Central Government to issue general or special orders to issue directions to Railway Administration in regard to carriage of certain goods. These powers also enable it to restrict or refuse acceptance of such goods or class of goods at or to such stations for carriage, as the orders may specify. Such orders cease to have effect after one year after it is issued unless renewed. Section 70 expressly mandates that Railway administration shall not make or give any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage to or in favour of any particular person or any particular description of traffic in the carriage of goods. She submits that restriction imposed on transport of manganese ore is violative of Section 70 of the Railway Act, 1989. 6. The judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Supdt., Central Prison v. Ram Manohar Lohia, reported at AIR 1960 SC 633 , is pressed into service to urge that restriction can be imposed only when public interest so warrants like where the commodity to be transported is dangerous or noxious or unhealthy. The judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rashid Ahmed vs. Municipal Board, Kairana, reported at AIR 1950 SC 153 is also relied upon to buttress this contention. The judgment in the case of Md. Faruk vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors., reported at AIR 1970 SC 93 is relied upon to point out how restriction on right to carry on trade of slaughtering bulls and bullocks is protected under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. 7. The judgment in the case of Md. Faruk vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors., reported at AIR 1970 SC 93 is relied upon to point out how restriction on right to carry on trade of slaughtering bulls and bullocks is protected under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. 7. The judgment in the case of Rex vs. Basudeva, reported at AIR (37) 1950 FC 67, is also relied upon to show how the sale of adulterated food stuff was held not proper and the Hon'ble Apex Court has found that black marketing in essential commodities may at times lead to disturbance of public order. The judgment in the case of Mohd. Hanif Quareshi & Ors. vs. State of Bihar, reported at AIR 1958 SC 731 , is also relied upon to point out scope of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and the requirements for a valid classification namely, (i) the classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from others left out of the group and (ii) such differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the statute in question. The effort is to urge that restriction on transport of manganese ore violated not only Section 70 of the Railways Act but also Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The judgment in the case of Abdul Hakim Quraishi & Ors. vs. State of Bihar, reported at AIR 1961 SC 448 is also relied upon to show how reasonableness of a statue needs to be determined. The judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Leo Roy vs. Superintendent, Dist. Jail, Amritsar & Anr., reported at AIR 1958 SC 119 is also relied upon to explain what constitutes a reasonable restriction. The judgment in the case of N.K. Bajpai vs. Union of India & Anr., reported at (2012) 4 SCC 653 is also relied upon to show importance of the concept of proximate & direct nexus as also test of least invasiveness in such cases. 8. It is pointed out that Railway Board as also Container Corporation claim that it is their prerogative to prescribe such a restriction or to withdraw it. 8. It is pointed out that Railway Board as also Container Corporation claim that it is their prerogative to prescribe such a restriction or to withdraw it. Para 14 in the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Centre for Public Interest Litigation vs. Union of India, reported at 2012 (3) SCC 117 , where the Hon. Court observes that the expression “prerogative” cannot be used in the context of a statutory provision & under constitutional and statutory framework, there is nothing known as prerogative is relied upon. Quote of eminent jurist N.A. Palkhivala in his treatise Our Constitution: Defaced and Defiled (Macmillan: December 1974) & agreement with his view expressed by Hon. Court is also pressed into service. The learned counsel submits that Respondent No. 4 – Railway has 63% stakes in Container Corporation of India and hence to enable Container Corporation to earn more profits, Railways deliberately avoided transportation of certain commodities thereby forcing needy persons to approach the Container Corporation of India Limited. She states that difference in rate mentioned by the learned counsel for the Container Corporation of India speaks for itself. According to her, no reason has been given in reply affidavit either by the Ministry of Railways or by the Container Corporation of India, necessitating imposition of such ban and even for its lifting. It is further added that nine containers were dispatched in two batches. The first batch of five containers left on 05.11.2011 while later batch left on 15.11.2011. As the time gap was very short, inadvertent error which took place on 05.11.2011 was repeated on 15.11.2011. 9. The judgment in the case of Cement Marketing Co. of India Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Indore & Ors., (supra), Uniworth Textiles Limited vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur, reported at (2013) 9 SCC 753 are relied upon to urge that for such inadvertent omission, initiation of proceedings or imposition of penalty is arbitrary. Our attention is also invited to judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of G. Ramegowada, Major etc. Our attention is also invited to judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of G. Ramegowada, Major etc. vs. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore, reported at AIR 1988 SC 897 , to submit that when the Inquiry Report prepared by Respondent No. 2 on 10.09.2012 is unsustainable, later order issued by Respondent No. 1 – Container Corporation levying penalty and other charges must also fall to ground as it is a dependable order. 10. Shri Sundaram, learned counsel on behalf of Railway Department, has relied upon reply affidavit to justify the exemption/refusal to transport of certain commodities by Railways. He submits that powers of Central Government are delegated to Railway Board and in exercise of that power, the restrictions have been imposed under The Indian Railways (Permission for Operators to Move Container Trains on Indian Railways) Rules, 2006. He adds that shipping services cannot claim fundamental right to trade under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. The Container Corporation of India Limited has entered into concession agreement with Railways/ Union of India and public resources made available to Container Corporation cannot be used for profiteering. The restrictions have been imposed for best possible utilization of said resource to expedite distribution of various commodities in larger public interest. He relies upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Reliance Natural Resources Limited vs. Reliance Industries Limited, reported at 2010 (7) SCC 1 . 11. He adds that there is no privity of contract between any of the petitioners and Railway department. The restriction in force since 2006 was well known and the restriction was continued every year thereafter. It was very much in force during the period when nine containers containing manganese ore were transported by both the petitioners. He argues that shipping services which avail services cannot turn around and challenge the authority of Railway or Container Corporation. It is estopped from doing so. The notification restricting movement is not arbitrary and issued in discharge of its sovereign functions by the Railway as a part of its policies. This power has been conferred upon the Railways under the Railways Act, 1989, as also the earlier enactment viz., old Act of 1905. 12. It is estopped from doing so. The notification restricting movement is not arbitrary and issued in discharge of its sovereign functions by the Railway as a part of its policies. This power has been conferred upon the Railways under the Railways Act, 1989, as also the earlier enactment viz., old Act of 1905. 12. In reply arguments, Counsel for the Shipping Line submits that no opportunity was given to Shipping Services before imposition of penalty and as imposition of penalty is the cause of action, the petitioner Shipping Line had no occasion to make any grievance & hence, there is no question of estoppel. She submits that had there been no penalty proceedings, it would not have been necessary for shipping services to file Writ Petition No. 1018 of 2013 seeking relief challenging the letter dated 01.07.2008 and earlier letter dated 11.10.2006 issued by Respondent No. 4 – Railways or letter dated 14.10.2011 issued by Respondent No. 1 – Container Corporation of India. She has invited our attention to documents at Exh. P-10, P-11 as also P.12 to show that restriction has been imposed by one line order without any application of mind and also, removed later without giving any explanation. 13. Shri Bhangde, learned counsel for M/s. Goodearth submits that it did not choose shipping services. In Bills of Lading, the petitioner M/s. Goodearth is shown as consignee. Inviting attention to the provisions in Contract Act dealing with concept of Agency and Bailment, he argues that shipping services cannot become agent of the petitioner or even of the Indonesian Company. The shipping services at the most becomes a bailee. He also attempts to point out distinction between these two concepts by referring to a commentary by Pollock & Mulla on Indian Contract & Specific Relief Acts, 13th edition. He submits that the impugned order dated 10.09.2012 also does not treat Trans Asian Shipping Services or M/s. Goodearth as Principal & Agent. M/s. Goodearth has not been benefited in any way in the matter as it was to get goods at Nagpur only. He highlights that shipping service does not attribute any motive to M/s. Goodearth and accepts its own error. He also invites attention to stand of shipping services before Inquiry Officer accepting that it was acting only as a bailee. 14. He highlights that shipping service does not attribute any motive to M/s. Goodearth and accepts its own error. He also invites attention to stand of shipping services before Inquiry Officer accepting that it was acting only as a bailee. 14. The previous history narrated in para 19 of Writ Petition No. 5233 of 2012 is relied upon by him to show that on earlier occasion for identical mis-declaration of restricted goods in other containers of M/s. Goodearth only, amount of fine has been deducted from PDA Account of shipping line with Container Corporation. According to him, there was no reason to deviate from this practice even in present matter. Consolidated rejoinder filed by M/s. Goodearth in Writ Petition No. 5233 of 2012 is also read out by him in an effort to demonstrate how in earlier Writ Petition in similar controversy, Container Corporation pointed out to Trans Asian Shipping Services that it being not a party to entire issue, the legal charges of its advocate should be paid by M/s. Trans Asian Shipping Services Private Limited. He submits that after said letter was produced before this Court, the goods were released in favour of that importer viz. Minex Metallurgical Company Limited and thereafter this Court disposed of Writ Petition No. 6401 of 2012 on 18.01.2013. 15. The question to be looked into by this Court is whether levy of penalty on 10.09.2012 as recommended by Respondent No. 2 – Inquiry Officer and accepted by the Container Corporation of India, is legal and valid. The facts noted supra and arguments show that M/s. Goodearth was to receive manganese ore at ICD, Nagpur. Thus, though it was a consignee, it was really not concerned with movement or transportation of goods from Indonesia to Nhave Sheva Port or then from Nhave Sheva Port to ICD, Nagpur. 16. In similar transaction on earlier occasion, the penalty amount on account of alleged mis-description has been recovered by the Container Corporation of India from the shipping services only. Here, M/s. Goodearth has come up with a specific defence that it is not concerned in any way with the misdicription. Neither Container Corporation nor Shipping Service has come up with a defence that cargo was dispatched through Railway as per instructions of M/s. Goodearth. We, therefore, do not find any reason enabling the Container Corporation or then Respondent No. 2 to deviate from earlier practice. Neither Container Corporation nor Shipping Service has come up with a defence that cargo was dispatched through Railway as per instructions of M/s. Goodearth. We, therefore, do not find any reason enabling the Container Corporation or then Respondent No. 2 to deviate from earlier practice. The communication dated 08.11.2011 sent by Shipping Services to Container Corporation accepts mistake at its end committed in forwarding note. The letter mentions that containers had rolled out from Nhave Sheva Port to ICD, Nagpur on 28.10.2011 vide Train No. 113359 and Train No. 113522 dated 06.11.2011. Thus, the error in relation to five containers mentioned therein was realized by Shipping services within 2 to 3 days of forwarding note. They have not & could not have blamed M/s. Goodearth for that error. 17. The second batch of four containers is with forwarding note dated 15.11.2011. There, mis-description or error is identical. It is, therefore, apparent that seven days after forwarding a communication dated 08.11.2011 accepting an inadvertent error, again on 15.11.2011 very same error has been committed. In this situation, we do not find anything wrong with the conclusion of Inquiry Officer that penalty is payable with other consequential charges for mis-description. However, we fail to understand how M/s Goodearth can be found responsible for these lapses. There is absolutely no material to justify any demand on it. 18. The perusal of provisions of Section 71 show a power with Railway Board to issue general or special order and restrict or refuse to accept particular goods or class of goods at or to a particular station for carriage. The fact that such orders were issued barring transportation by Railway of certain commodities including mineral ore is not in dispute. The fact that such restriction was also in force on 05.11.2011 or 15.11.2011 is also not in dispute. The Trans Asian Shipping Services were, therefore, aware that ores were included in the list of commodities movement of which was prohibited through the railway containers. The learned counsel for the Shipping Services has pointed out that coal or coke are combustible in nature and regulated under the Essential Commodities Act. Minerals which do not occur naturally may also have some hazardous or other properties. According to her, therefore, there may be some logic in prohibiting movement of coal, coke or mineral. However, ore is present in nature and is moved in same form.. Minerals which do not occur naturally may also have some hazardous or other properties. According to her, therefore, there may be some logic in prohibiting movement of coal, coke or mineral. However, ore is present in nature and is moved in same form.. Thus, it is always lying open to atmosphere and people are exposed to it. The effort was to urge that there was no reason to or logic in restricting movement of ore. This argument is sought to be substantiated by pointing out that no reasons are coming forth from respondents to support act of imposing restrictions or for doing it away on 28.02.2014. Submission is, therefore, the restriction was only with a view to create business opportunities for Container Corporation of India. 19. The facts pointed out to this Court show that mis-description of such nature is not the first fault or first instance on the part of said Shipping line. It has been repeated within 10 days after communication dated 08.11.2011. If it wanted to challenge the correctness of prohibition, it ought to have vetillated its grievance on 8.11.2011 instead of pleading an inadvertent error. Being in business, it cannot be accepted or presumed that Trans Asian Shipping Services were not aware that manganese ore could not have been carried through Railways. If it felt that the restriction was unreasonable or otherwise bad, it ought to have made that grievance beforehand. Having committed the wrong, not coming up with any justification therefor & then making an attempt to urge invalidity of the restriction itself, is not the conduct befitting on its part. 20. The arguments of Trans Asian Shipping Services about validity of restriction imposed by the Railways, fundamental right to carry on trade or reasonable restriction upon it, violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India or then breach of Section 70 of Railways Act, 1989, are all coming after the wrong has been detected. It is not the case of said shipping services that it got knowledge of restriction only after penalty proceedings were initiated. We, therefore, find that all these contentions have been raised after initiation of penalty proceedings and need not be gone into in present matter. 21. The restriction imposed by Railways was in force from 2006 till 28.02.2014 and has been withdrawn thereafter. We, therefore, find that all these contentions have been raised after initiation of penalty proceedings and need not be gone into in present matter. 21. The restriction imposed by Railways was in force from 2006 till 28.02.2014 and has been withdrawn thereafter. Hence, the questions whether such a restriction could have been imposed by Railways, whether it is in consonance with Railways Act or constitutionally valid, are rendered only academic in the present matter. We have already noted supra that the Shipping Service is not blaming M/s. Goodearth for error committed by it. The Container Corporation of India has not produced any material to show that M/s. Goodearth is privy to such wrong description or has gained any benefit out of it. Neither Shipping Line nor any other party has produced any agreement or document before us for said purpose. It is not in dispute that Container Corporation has on earlier occasion recovered similar penalty only from Shipping Services through its PDA Account. In present matter, there is no material to justify levy of penalty on M/s Goodearth either singly or then jointly and severally with Trans Asian Shipping Services. 22. The finding in Inquiry Report dated 10.09.2012 about concession agreement and, therefore, incorporation of Railways letter dated 01.07.2008 in said agreement for a period of 20 years is not shown to be either erroneous or perverse. The Container Corporation is, therefore, justified in levying penalty and demanding the associated charges as recommended by the Inquiry Officer. Demand is not without jurisdiction or perverse. 23. Though M/s. Trans Asian Shipping Services Private Limited has laboured hard to show the unconstitutionality or illegality of restriction on movement of ore, as in present facts, we are not inclined to embark upon the exercise to adjudicate it; we, do not find it necessary to consider the precedents cited by its learned counsel for said purpose. M/s. Trans Asian Shipping Services Private Limited handed over the ore for transport by Railway to the Container Corporation without any protest and with knowledge of said restriction. Had it succeeded in dodging the detection, such a challenge would not have surfaced. We, therefore, leave its said contentions open for due evaluation in more appropriate facts. As a result of this discussion, Writ Petition No. 1018 of 2013 is dismissed. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs. 24. Writ Petition No. 5233 of 2012 is allowed. Had it succeeded in dodging the detection, such a challenge would not have surfaced. We, therefore, leave its said contentions open for due evaluation in more appropriate facts. As a result of this discussion, Writ Petition No. 1018 of 2013 is dismissed. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs. 24. Writ Petition No. 5233 of 2012 is allowed. The Inquiry Report/ communication dated 10.09.2012 to the extent it finds the petitioner M/s. Goodearth Agro Chem Private Limited jointly and severally responsible, is quashed and set aside. Respondent No. 1 to refund an amount of Rs.27,000/paid by the petitioner to it. Rule is made absolute accordingly. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. 25. At this stage, Mr. Sunil Chopkar, learned counsel for the petitioner M/s. Trans Asia Shipping Services Pvt. Ltd., (in Writ Petition No. 1018/2013) requests for continuation of the position prevailing as on today for a period of six weeks more. Shri R.M. Bhangde, learned counsel for the petitioner M/s. Goodearth Agro Chem Pvt. Ltd. (in Writ Petition 5233/2012) submits that it should not operate to the prejudice of his client. Shri G.E. Moharir, learned counsel for respondent no.1 in both the matters is opposing continuation of the interim orders. 26. However, in the interest of justice, we continue status quo as on today only in relation to the stakes of M/s. Trans Asia Shipping Services Pvt. Ltd., in the matter, for a period of six weeks. It shall cease to operate automatically thereafter.