ORDER : Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The present petition is filed in the following circumstances: The first petitioner is said to be an exporter of minerals, including iron ore, and the same was transported by road and rail. It was the practice for the petitioner to book railway rakes, well in advance, for the purpose of transportation of iron ore. The first petitioner was said to despatch iron ore through railway wagons from Yeshwanth Nagar Railway Station, Hospet. The second petitioner was the authorized transporter who transported iron ore on behalf of the first petitioner though road and rail. It transpires that the Ministry of Railways, through the Railway Board, had issued a Circular dated 31.05.2007 offering several concessions for transportation of iron ore at 30% of the tarrif, for movement of iron ore through the South Western Railway to Gandhidham in Gujarat with effect from 1.6.2007 and the same was valid till 31.03.2008. The petitioners had availed of the concessional tariff for moving the iron ore and had booked three rakes from Yeshwanth Nagar Railway Station to Gandhidham Railway Station on 30.01.2008, 7.2.2008 and 8.2.2008, respectively. Each rake was to carry approximately 2500 metric tonnes of iron ore fines. The petitioners had accordingly paid the freight charges in advance and the consignment is said to have reached Gandhidham Railway station on 9.2.2008, 14.02.2008 and 15.02.2008 respectively. However, the railway authorities did not permit the unloading of the consignment on the ground that the concession which was offered to the petitioners had been withdrawn on the basis of a circular and therefore, no such concession could have been availed of by the petitioners, and demanded additional charges eschewing the concession offered. Since the petitioners entrusted the consignment with the Railways only since there was a concession offered, they therefore had approached the Consumer Redressal Forum, Bellary, claiming loss and damages suffered on account of the refusal to permit the consignment material to be unloaded and sought for release of the same. The respondents had contested the claim. It was contended that the complaint was not maintainable. It was contended that since the transportation of iron ore was for commercial purposes, it did not involve any service. The petitioners on legal advise, then chose to withdraw the complaint and have filed this writ petition seeking redressal of their grievance. The respondents had contested the claim. It was contended that the complaint was not maintainable. It was contended that since the transportation of iron ore was for commercial purposes, it did not involve any service. The petitioners on legal advise, then chose to withdraw the complaint and have filed this writ petition seeking redressal of their grievance. It is reiterated that only after the cargo was despatched and had reached its destination that the respondents have raised a claim that the concession offered was no longer valid and that it was by mistake of fact that the goods had been accepted for delivery and that unless the petitioner paid the difference in freight, the goods could not be released. It is this controversy which is the subject matter of the present petition. 3. The respondents having entered appearance, have filed statement of objections raising certain preliminary objections, which is reiterated by the learned counsel for the respondents. It is contended that the present writ petition is misconceived and is not maintainable. That, in terms of Section 36 of the Railways Act, 1989, any complaint as regards the Railway administration charging for the carriage of any commodity between two stations, at a rate which is unreasonable, it would be for the complainant to approach the Railway Rates Tribunal constituted under Chapter VII of the Railways Act, 1989. Therefore, since the petitioners were armed with an alternative remedy of redressal, the petitioners firstly having chosen to approach the Consumer Forum and thereafter having withdrawn the same and having approached this court, is a folly committed by the petitioners and they should avail of the appropriate remedy before the Tribunal. 4. Even assuming that the writ petition was maintainable, it is pointed out that it would not be tenable for the petitioners to contend that the respondents are not in a position to demand and receive the additional amounts payable in terms of Section 78 of the Act, which provides that notwithstanding anything contained in the railway receipt, the railway administration may, before the delivery of the consignment, have the right to remeasure, reweigh or reclassify, any consignment; recalculate the freight and other charges; and correct any other error or collect any amount that may have been omitted to be charged before the delivery of the consignment. Hence, it cannot be said that the action of the respondent was unlawful or illegal. Hence, it cannot be said that the action of the respondent was unlawful or illegal. Further, as per paragraph 1811(c) and 1446 C (3) of the Indian Railway Commercial Manual Volume-II, the Receiving Station of the Railways is entitled to recover the under charges for transport of goods and that the petitioners cannot claim the concessional rates after withdrawal of the same and would assert that the petition be dismissed as not maintainable. 5. In the above facts and circumstances, it is not in dispute that the petitioners had willfully entrusted the goods to the respondents for carriage only on account of the 30% concession that was offered on the freight charges. For otherwise, the petitioners would not have entered into the contract. Hence, if the concession that was availed of was no longer available by virtue of a subsequent circular, and was brought to the attention of the petitioners only upon the consignment reaching its destination. Respondents 1 and 2 having booked the consignment and having received the freight charges at 30% concession and Respondent No.3 having realized that a mistake of fact had been committed by Respondents 1 and 2, the question is whether the Railways are enabled in law to claim and demand the difference in charges and whether the contract of entrustment of goods for carriage could be said to be voidable and not binding on the respondents. 6. On a plain reading of Section 22 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, it is evident that a contract is not voidable merely because it was caused by one of the parties to it being under a mistake as to a matter of fact. Secondly, in terms of Section 8 of the Indian Contract Act, a contract is said to be binding when once a proposal is accepted and the consideration is received. Section 8 fortifies this position which lays down that, performance of the conditions of proposal for the acceptance of any consideration for a reciprocal promise which may be offered with a proposal, is an acceptance of the proposal. Therefore, the contract entered into by the respondents to carry the consignment entrusted to it by the petitioners at a concessional freight and receipt of the freight charges by the respondent created a binding contract and could not have been varied unless agreed to by both the parties. Therefore, the contract entered into by the respondents to carry the consignment entrusted to it by the petitioners at a concessional freight and receipt of the freight charges by the respondent created a binding contract and could not have been varied unless agreed to by both the parties. There could be novation of a contract only by agreement. The respondents seeking to vary the contract by claiming that there is a mistake of fact in having accepted the freight charges at 30% concession, is not available to the respondents. 7. The several provisions of the Railways Act which are highlighted by the learned counsel for the petitioner are all in respect of circumstances where the rate prescribed is known to both parties and either there is a mistake or error in calculation of the exact freight payable as against the consignments that are carried. This would not hold good in respect of a situation where the freight is accepted at a concessional rate and thereafter, realising that there is a mistake in having accepted such concessional rate, would not enable the respondent to resile from the contract. This is the legal position. However, insofar as the contention that the petitioners were armed with an alternative remedy and that they should be relegated to the Tribunal, is again not a contention that can be readily accepted. Section 36 of the Railways Act only indicates that when there is an unreasonable demand by the Railways, a dispute could be raised. The present demand is not merely unreasonable. It is clearly unlawful. Therefore, the present petition having been entertained in the year 2008 and rule having been issued by this Court, it would be unjust and would result in a miscarriage of justice if the petitioners are to be relegated to an alternative forum at this remote point of time. It is also brought to the attention of this Court that pursuant to an interim order of this Court, the petitioners were obliged to deposit 40% of the demand, which the respondents have received. Therefore, the interest of both the parties would be served if the amount that has now been received by the respondents is taken as the full and final settlement of the demand made by the respondents. Therefore, the interest of both the parties would be served if the amount that has now been received by the respondents is taken as the full and final settlement of the demand made by the respondents. This would not only ensure that a Government of India Undertaking is not deprived of money which would otherwise have been a just demand if not for the mistake committed, and the petitioners having had the benefit, only on account of the mistake of fact on the part of the South Western Railway being given an unjust benefit, is also addressed. Therefore, it would meet the ends of justice if the amount now withdrawn by the respondents is taken as full and final settlement of their claim. Accordingly, the petition is allowed in part and stands disposed of in terms as above. The impugned demand is quashed. The petitioners were required to furnish a Bank Guarantee for 60% of the remaining amount, which remains in force. Having regard to the disposal of the petition, the Bank Guarantee stands discharged and revoked.