JUDGMENT & ORDER : Heard Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B.N. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel for the Railways. 2. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition on being aggrieved by the weighment recorded at Nandurbar Weigh Bridge and also the demand notice dated 22.09.2014 by which the petitioner was imposed and charged of Rs.2,57,649/- for there being excess weight beyond the weight booked by the petitioner with the railway authorities. By the said order, detention and wharfage charges was also imposed upon the petitioner. 3. By the order dated 26.09.2014, this Court had provided that in the interim, since the petitioner’s parcel vans were shortly reaching New Guwahati station, the respondent authorities, as already requested by the petitioner, would facilitate weighment of the goods at the destination station under clause 27.9 of the policy notified on 15.04.2014 on due payment. 4. Subsequently, by the order dated 29.10.2014, in Misc Case No.2866/2014, this Court had observed that since the re-weighment had not been done despite the Courts order and no application has been filed by the railway authorities, the earlier order dated 26.09.2014 had been reiterated. Accordingly, by the order of 29.10.2014, it was provided that the re-weighment be done within a period of 03(three) days. Accordingly, the re-weighment was done and the result of the re-weighment has been annexed by the respondent authorities in their affidavit in opposition dated 05.12.2014. As per the result of the re-weighment, as found in the joint re-weighment report of SRVPU 93838, the total weight of the consignment of the petitioner was found to be 12,500.40 kgs. As per the consignment note, the petitioner had booked for 16990 kgs and was charged for 18,000 kgs. Therefore, the weight of the consignment of the petitioner is within the limits of the weight that was booked by the petitioner and hence there cannot by any charge by the railway authorities for excess weight as well for any wharfage and demurrage charges. 5. This Court again by its order dated 26.11.2014 in Misc Case No.3201/2014 had provided that since the re-weighment was initially refused by the railways and subsequently done only because of the Court’s order dated 29.10.2014, the operator cannot be faulted for the delayed delivery. 5. This Court again by its order dated 26.11.2014 in Misc Case No.3201/2014 had provided that since the re-weighment was initially refused by the railways and subsequently done only because of the Court’s order dated 29.10.2014, the operator cannot be faulted for the delayed delivery. Therefore, this Court was of the view that the demand for demurrage and weigh freight charge made by the Chief Parcel Supervisor in the Guwahati Railway Station be stayed and the goods be delivered without levying such penal charges. Accordingly, pursuant to the order dated 26.11.2014, the goods in concerned of the petitioner had been released. 6. The only question now remains to be answered is whether the railway authorities can imposes demurrage and wharfage charges on the petitioner for the delay in delivery. As has already been noted hereinabove, the entire delay in taking the delivery of the goods in question had occurred because the railway authorities had issued the impugned order dated 22.09.2014, by which the railway authorities, without any appropriate verification, was of the view that there is excess weight in the consignment of the petitioner and accordingly an over charge of Rs.2,57,649/- was imposed upon the petitioner. By the said order, a demurrage charge and wharfage charge totaling to Rs.3,41,494/- was also imposed. It is also noticed that in the order dated 22.09.2014, the railway authorities had not even stated as to what is the excess weight carried by the petitioner and the concerned space is still vacant. The same also shows an absolute non application of mind on the part of the railway authorities. 7. But be that as it may, as after the order of re-weighment as ordered by this Court, it had been found that the weight of the consignment booked by the petitioner was well within the declared weight and for the weight the petitioner had already paid the railways, there cannot be any justifiable reason on the part of the railway authorities in detaining the goods of the petitioner and charging the demurrage charge and wharfage charges upon the same. It is more so in view of the fact that the railway authorities in the order dated 22.09.2014 had even failed to mention as to up to what weight the consignment of the petitioner had exceeded the booked weight. It is more so in view of the fact that the railway authorities in the order dated 22.09.2014 had even failed to mention as to up to what weight the consignment of the petitioner had exceeded the booked weight. The aforesaid act on the part of the railway authorities appears to be an absolutely arbitrary and vitiated with non application of mind. 8. Be that as it may, the entire delay in taking the delivery had occurred due to the aforesaid arbitrary act on the part of the railway authorities and therefore, this Court is of the view that the demurrage charges and wharfage charges cannot be imposed by the railway authorities upon the petitioner. The demurrage and wharfage charge can be imposed only in a situation where the consignor had a fault and because of such fault, the goods had to remain for a longer period of time with the railway authorities than what it would otherwise have required. The same principle cannot be made applicable in a situation where the goods were required to be kept for a longer period of time because of an act which can be attributed to the railway authorities rather than to the consignor. 9. In the aforesaid circumstances, equity is also in favour of the petitioner inasmuch as, the wharfage charge and the demurrage charges are not to be imposed upon the petitioner because it was on the basis of iniquitous act on the part of the railway authorities that the goods were required to be detained for a longer period of time than what it would otherwise have required. 10. In the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is of the view that the demurrage charges and the wharfage charges as sought to be imposed by the railway authorities by the order dated 22.09.2014 shall not be imposed upon the petitioner. In terms of the above, the writ petition stands disposed of.