JUDGMENT : Dama Seshadri Naidu, J. Introduction: 1. The appellant, a licenced Coolie Porters’ Association, having its operations at Thrissur Railway Station, questions the judgment dated 19.01.2017 in W.P.(C) No. 35959 of 2015. 2. As seen from the impugned judgment, it refers to the Ext.R3(a) judgment in W.P.(C) No. 11732 of 2010 and holds that the appellant association is entitled to handle luggage, leaving aside the parcels entrusted to the third respondent through Ext.P3 agreement. The appellant association is before us asserting that neither judgment—the one in W.P. (C) No.35959 of 2015 or the one in W.P. (C) No.35959 of 2017, now impugned—definitionally demarcated the luggage and the parcel. So the ambiguity remains and the controversy persists. The Controversy: 3. The appellant association at Thrissur Railway Station has 65 licensed porters as its members. The President of India, acting through the Divisional Railway Manager (Commercial), granted licence to each of them, Ext.P1 being one such deed of licence. Thus licensed, the members of the appellant association have the right to handle the passenger luggage at Thrissur Railway Station—carried by the passenger either in the compartment or through the brake van. 4. The Commercial Manual of Indian Railways prescribes three modes for carrying articles on train: 1. To be carried along by the passengers in the compartments; 2. To be booked on a passenger’s reserved or unreserved ticket and carried in the brake-van; and 3. To be sent without the consignor traveling. Of these three modes, the appellant-association members are entitled to handle the first two modes. 5. In 2015, to handle parcels, the Railway administration entered into Ext.P3 agreement with T.P. Usman Koya Haji, the third respondent. Misreading the provisions of the Indian Railways Act and the Departmental Manuals, the railway authorities have categorised much of the luggage as parcel. So they allowed Usman Haji to handle the luggage in the name of parcels, thus de-proving the association members their right to handle the luggage. 6. Though the appellant members have been paying the licence fee to the Railways as per the Ext.P1, they have been denied their due share of work: handling all that can be classified as luggage. Despite the representations, such as Ext.P4, the authorities have remained unmoved. So, left with no other alternative, the appellant association has filed W.P. (C) No. 35959 of 2015. 7. Despite the representations, such as Ext.P4, the authorities have remained unmoved. So, left with no other alternative, the appellant association has filed W.P. (C) No. 35959 of 2015. 7. Dissatisfied with the judgment dated 19.1.2017, the association has filed this intra-court appeal. It assails the judgment on the ground that it does not resolve the controversy, especially, of defining luggage and parcel in distinctive terms. The Submissions: The Appellant’s: 8. In this context, Smt. Surya Binoy, the appellant’s counsel, contends that Section 2(23) of the Railways Act, 1989, defines ‘luggage’; Section 2(27) ‘parcel’, and Section 2(29) ‘passenger.’ According to her, there is no overlapping, though the definitions of ‘luggage’ and ‘parcel’ apparently contain repetitive expressions. 9. To elaborate, she has submitted that the definitions of ‘luggage’ and ‘passenger’ read together leave no manner of doubt: Whatever items the passenger either carries personally or books through the railway authorities to be transported should be treated as luggage. She has drawn our attention to the last part of the definition of parcel. She asserts that parcel is goods entrusted to a railway station for a carriage by a passenger train or parcel train. In other words, ‘train’ coming after ‘parcel’ must be read as if it were used before ‘passenger’ as well. Otherwise, it leads to incongruous interpretation, and the expression renders itself incomprehensible, too. Respondent Railways’: 10. Sri C.S. Dias, the learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 and 2, has drawn our attention to the Railway Commercial Code Manual and IRCA Coaching Tariff. He has laid emphasis on clause 801 of the Railway Commercial Code to hammer home his contention that the articles not accepted as luggage should be treated as parcel. In elaboration, he has taken us to the IRCA Coaching Tariff, which lists out the articles not accepted as luggage. He has contended that even if the listed items are carried by the passenger, or if they have mercantile use, they must be treated as parcels. 11. Eventually, the learned Standing Counsel has submitted that there is overlap between the luggage and parcel as defined in the Act. But if they are read with the Railway Commercial Code and IRCA Coaching tariff, contends Sri Dias, they are clear and unambiguous. According to him, Ext.P3 needs no interference. 3rd Respondent’s: 12. Sri K. Mohanakannan, the 3rd respondent’s counsel, has submitted that the issue stands already answered in Ext. But if they are read with the Railway Commercial Code and IRCA Coaching tariff, contends Sri Dias, they are clear and unambiguous. According to him, Ext.P3 needs no interference. 3rd Respondent’s: 12. Sri K. Mohanakannan, the 3rd respondent’s counsel, has submitted that the issue stands already answered in Ext. R3 (a) judgment, which, according to him, has attained finality. Therefore, he contends that the earlier judgment was invited by the members of the association; now the association, which is nothing but a group of members, cannot lay a fresh challenge. 13. Heard Smt. Surya Binoy, the learned counsel for the appellant, Sri C.S. Dias, the learned Standing Counsel for the Railways, and Sri K. Mohanakannan, the learned counsel for the third respondent, besides perusing the record. Discussion: 14. We may, to begin with, examine the definitions of ‘luggage’, ‘parcel’, and ‘passenger’, which are defined under Section 2 (23), (27), and (29) respectively: “2. Definitions.-In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,— (23) “luggage” means the goods of a passenger either carried by him in his charge or entrusted to a railway administration for carriage; (27) “parcel” means goods entrusted to a railway administration for carriage by a passenger or a parcel train. (29) “passenger” means a person traveling with a valid pass or ticket;” 15. As seen from the above extracted definitions, luggage signifies the goods of a passenger either carried by him or entrusted to a railway administration for carriage. Here, what assumes importance is the expression ‘passenger’. It ought to be, in the first place, booked by the passenger himself, and it hardly matters whether he himself carries the luggage in the compartment he travels or entrusts it to the railway administration. A passenger entrusts the luggage to the railway administration despite his traveling, if the luggage, for instance, is too unwieldy or heavy to be tucked under the passenger seat. 16. Parcel, as defined, is goods entrusted to a railway administration for carriage by “a passenger or a parcel train.” But the sentence presents certain semantic ambiguity. Here, “passenger”, though a noun, attributively serves as an adjective; it qualifies “train.” The reference is to “a passenger train or a parcel train.” On the contrary, if we treat “passenger” as an agent or subject in the passive—the sentence in the active reads: “a passenger entrusts goods to a railway administration”. Here, “passenger”, though a noun, attributively serves as an adjective; it qualifies “train.” The reference is to “a passenger train or a parcel train.” On the contrary, if we treat “passenger” as an agent or subject in the passive—the sentence in the active reads: “a passenger entrusts goods to a railway administration”. Then, the next clause phrase after the disjunctive “or” makes no sense: “that a parcel train entrusts goods to a railway administration.” 17. If we parse section 2 (27), it reveals two sentences separated by the disjunctive ‘or’: (1) Parcel means goods entrusted to a railway administration for carriage by a passenger. (2) Parcel means goods entrusted to a railway administration for carriage by a parcel train. 18. The second sentence, as we see, is illogical, if not ungrammatical. Instead, if we treat both ‘passenger’ and ‘parcel’ as pre-modifiers or attributive nouns modifying the head word ‘train’, then the meaning is clear: goods entrusted to a railway administration for carriage by a passenger train or parcel train. 19. So any person who wants to transport goods without his accompanying them may book them as a parcel, as has been rightly contended by the petitioner’s counsel. 20. Further, as fairly submitted by the learned Standing Counsel, the ambiguity, if any, in the definitional dynamics of the provisions could be clarified, once we refer to the Railway Commercial Code and also the IRCA Coaching Tariff. Clause 801 of the Railway Commercial Code mentions that articles which cannot be accepted for booking or carried by passengers as luggage are listed in the IRCA Coaching Tariff. 21. The IRCA Coaching Tariff, too, defines luggage: the belongings of a passenger which are either to be used during the course of tour or just after the journey, either carried by him in his charge or entrusted to the railway administration for carriage. The same document also lists out articles not accepted as luggage. Most are inherently dangerous objects, such as explosives or inflammable substances. The 7th item is mercantile goods/luggage. 22. We may observe here that if the authorities believe that the luggage even if accompanied by a passenger is treated as mercantile goods, it ought to be treated as a parcel. The Conclusion: 23. Most are inherently dangerous objects, such as explosives or inflammable substances. The 7th item is mercantile goods/luggage. 22. We may observe here that if the authorities believe that the luggage even if accompanied by a passenger is treated as mercantile goods, it ought to be treated as a parcel. The Conclusion: 23. In the end, we clarify that all luggage, which is fit for carriage, if booked and accompanied by the passenger, whether it is carried in the same compartment or the brake van, must be treated as luggage. And it requires to be handled by the members of the appellant association. 24. On the other hand, any luggage unaccompanied by the passenger or any prohibitory items as listed out in IRCA Coaching Tariff must be treated as a parcel to be handled by the third respondent in terms of Ext.P3. 25. With these observations, we allow the writ appeal, essentially, by clarifying what goods the members of the appellant association can handle and what goods the third respondent can handle. No order on costs.