JUDGMENT : 1. This Court had issued notice upon the private respondent, respondent No.1 but as yet the service is not complete. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has insisted upon the Court for disposal of the writ petition, therefore, the matter has been taken up for hearing and is being disposed of. 3. This writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India whereby and whereunder the order dated 10.04.2017 passed in O.A. No.37 of 2016 by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Ranchi Bench as well as the consequential notice dated 12.04.2017 issued by the Additional Registrar, Railway Claims Tribunal, Ranchi Bench directing the Additional Divisional Railway Manager, Danapur to appear in person before the learned Tribunal on 25.04.2017 and to explain as to why the DRM's report has not been filed. 4. The aforesaid order has been challenged on the ground that in the similar circumstances, the Hon'ble Patna High Court has passed judgments/orders annexed as Annexure-3, 4, 5 & 6 to the writ petition. 5. Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent No.2 wherein the stand has been taken that in spite of the numerous opportunities given to the railway authority to file written statement as also to file DRM's report, no diligence was shown to comply with the said order while as per the provision provided under Section 18 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 which lays down the procedure and powers of claims tribunal, Section 18(3)(a) provides that the claims tribunal shall have, for the purposes of discharging its functions under this Act, the same powers as are vested in a civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and has power to summon and enforce the attendance of any person and examine him on oath. Section 27 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 provides that no suit, prosecution or other legal proceeding shall lie against the Central Government or against the Chairman, Vice-Chairman or other Member, or any other person authorized by the Chairman, Vice-Chairman or other Member for anything which is done in good faith. 6. It has further been stated therein that after passing of various orders, several opportunities have been given to the Railway, initially to file written statement and thereafter, to record evidence as well as filing of DRM's report. 7. 6. It has further been stated therein that after passing of various orders, several opportunities have been given to the Railway, initially to file written statement and thereafter, to record evidence as well as filing of DRM's report. 7. It is statutory obligation of the railways that Rule 13 of Rules, 2003 which provides that the DRM's report is to be filed along with the written statement for its proper adjudication. 8. It has further been stated that by directing the railway authorities to bring on record the DRM's report, no stigma will be caused upon the railway authority rather it is only for the purpose of proper adjudication of the issues, and therefore, when there is latches on the part of the railway authorities, a direction has been passed by the Tribunal for proper adjudication of the issues so that the purpose for which the railway Tribunal has been constituted as per the enactment of the Central Act would be achieved. 9. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and after going across the pleadings made in the writ petition as also the counter affidavit, the factual aspect which is not in dispute in this case is that a claim has been raised before the Railway Claims Tribunal. 10. The notices have been issued to the railway authorities but as it transpires from the record that the DRM's report which was required to be filed along with the written statement has not been filed as such the appropriate direction has been issued by the Tribunal asking the railway authorities to bring on record the DRM's report but in spite of ample opportunities granted by the Tribunal, no such report has been brought on record, therefore, the Tribunal in the ends of justice has passed an order on 10.04.2017 by issuing summons plus appearance of the A.D.R.M., Danapur Division, Eastern Railway on 25.04.2017 to explain as to why the DRM's report has not been filed. 11. The petitioner has tried to impress upon the Court by putting reliance upon the orders/judgments passed by the Hon'ble Patna High Court in C.W.J.C. No.3041 of 2015 decided on 10.03.2015 (Annexure-3), C.W.J.C. No.8309 of 2015 decided on 03.06.2015 (Annexure-4), C.W.J.C. No.8327 of 2015 decided on 15.06.2015 (Annexure-5) and C.W.J.C. No.3366 of 2017 decided on 03.03.2017 (Annexure-6). 12. 11. The petitioner has tried to impress upon the Court by putting reliance upon the orders/judgments passed by the Hon'ble Patna High Court in C.W.J.C. No.3041 of 2015 decided on 10.03.2015 (Annexure-3), C.W.J.C. No.8309 of 2015 decided on 03.06.2015 (Annexure-4), C.W.J.C. No.8327 of 2015 decided on 15.06.2015 (Annexure-5) and C.W.J.C. No.3366 of 2017 decided on 03.03.2017 (Annexure-6). 12. This Court thinks it proper before scrutinizing the legality and propriety of the impugned order to deal with the establishment of Railway Claims Tribunal. 13. It is known that the administration of the railways is not limited only to running of the railways rather the functioning of the railways also includes issues like loss or damage to the goods of passengers travelling in the trains, non-delivery of goods, thefts, accidents, causing injuries and death of the passengers as well as the common people and many more issues and as such the railway administration has laid down this Railway Act, 1989 since it is difficult to get fast adjudication in the normal courts since there are large number of cases of all the areas running in these courts and to get justice in these courts is a bit complex one, therefore, need was considered for establishment of Railway Claims Tribunal under the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 which came into force from 18th November, 1989 to provide speedy justice to the railway users and passengers by way of expeditious payment of compensation to the victims of rail accidents, to give compensation to the people whose goods are lost or damaged while with railways. 14. The procedure to be followed by the Railway Claims Tribunals as per the provision made under Section 18 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 which talks about the procedure and powers of Claims Tribunal by which the Claims Tribunal shall not be bound by the procedure which is laid down by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 which will be guided by the principles of natural justice and subject to other provisions of the Act and the Tribunal is having the power to regulate its own procedure including the fixing of places and times of its enquiry. 15. 15. Although, Claims Tribunal shall not be bound by the procedure laid down by the C.P.C. but as would be evident from the provision as contained under sub-section (3) to Section 18 that the Claims Tribunal shall have, for the purposes of discharging its function under this Act, the same powers as are vested in a Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. For ready reference the provision of Section 18 read hereunder as : “18. Procedure and powers of Claims Tribunal.––(1) The Claims Tribunal shall not be bound by the procedure laid down by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), but shall be guided by the principles of natural justice and, subject to the other provisions of this Act and of any rules, the Claims Tribunal shall have powers to regulate its own procedure including the fixing of places and times of its enquiry (2). The Claims Tribunal shall decide every application as expeditiously as possible and ordinarily every application shall be decided on a perusal of documents, written representations and a affidavits and after hearing such oral arguments as may be advanced. The Claims Tribunal shall decide every application as expeditiously as possible and ordinarily every application shall be decided on a perusal of documents, written representations and a affidavits and after hearing such oral arguments as may be advanced. (3) The Claims Tribunal shall have, for the purposes of discharging its functions under this Act, the same powers as are vested in a civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure,1908 (5 of 1908), while trying a suit, in respect of the following matter, namely:- (a) summoning and enforcing the a attendance of any person and examining him on oath; (b) requiring the discovery and production of documents; (c) receiving evidence on affidavits; (d) subject to the provisions of sections 123 and 124 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1972), requisitioning any public record or document or copy of such record or document from any office; (e) issuing commissions for the examination of witnesses or documents; (f) reviewing its decisions; (g) dismissing an application for default or deciding it ex parte; (h) setting aside any order of dismissal of any application for default or any order passed by it ex parte; (i) any other matter which may be prescribed” It is evident from the aforesaid provision as contained under sub-section (3) to Section 18 that the Claims Tribunal can summon and enforce the attendance of any person and examine him on oath, requiring the discovery and production of documents, receiving evidence on affidavits, issuing commissions for the examination of witnesses or documents, reviewing its decisions, dismissing an application for default or deciding it ex-parte, setting aside any order of dismissal of any application for default or any order passed by it ex-parte, any other matter which may be prescribed, meaning thereby, the Tribunal has been conferred with wide powers as provided under the Code of Civil Procedure. 16. As has been referred hereinabove that the purpose for establishment of Railway Claims Tribunal is to provide speedy justice to the parties and that was the main object and intent for enactment of the Railway Claims Tribunal, therefore, the procedure and powers of Claims Tribunal as provided under Section 18 is strictly to be followed for expeditious disposal of the claims so that the benefit would be given to the people who are applicant before the Tribunal. 17. 17. It is in the light of the aforesaid object and intent of the Act, the impugned order has been appreciated wherefrom it is evident that the Tribunal has passed an order on 10.04.2017 by summoning the A.D.R.M., Danapur Division along with DRM's report as also direction of appearance at 11:00 am. It further appears from the aforesaid order that the Tribunal was willing to peruse the DRM's report but the respondent has failed to file the same. 18. The DRM's report is having paramount consideration for assessing amount of compensation which is to be filed along with the written statement but has not been filed, therefore, the aforesaid direction has been passed by the Tribunal. 19. It is also not in dispute that if a document is not being produced, an adverse inference can be taken but the question herein is that when any document is not being produced which is required to be produced along with the written statement as has been reflected in the counter affidavit, the question would be that the petitioner being the public servant, can be allowed to withhold a document from the Court of law or forum, the answer will be in negative for the reason that withholding of a document from the Court of law or forum will amount to suppression of fact and therefore, if the said tactics would be allowed to continue, there would be no proper adjudication of the issues and as such if a direction has been passed by the Railway Tribunal for personal appearance along with the DRM's report, according to the considered view of this Court, the same requires no interference by the writ Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 20. The question of jurisdiction of the Railway Tribunal has been raised in this writ petition and to strengthen the argument, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgments/orders passed by Hon'ble Patna High Court wherein according to the petitioner in similar circumstances, the Hon'ble Patna High Court has been pleased to hold that the Tribunal has got no power to direct for personal appearance to the railway authorities. 21. 21. This Court has considered the judgment/order passed in C.W.J.C. No.3041 of 2015 wherein the reason for allowing the writ petition has been shown as, since the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal has ignored that he is only heading a Tribunal but has felt that he is the ultimate supervisory authority vested with the power to pass any order of his choice and therefore, the same has not been appreciated, while in C.W.J.C. No.8309 of 2015 an order interim in nature has been passed and likewise in C.W.J.C. No.3366 of 2017, the interim order has been passed. 22. This Court after going across the judgment passed in C.W.J.C. No.3041 of 2015 and with all due respect the said judgment cannot be held to be perfect law keeping into consideration the provision of sub-section (3) to Section 18 of the Railway Tribunal Act. 23. Now the question herein is that any law has not been considered by the Court of law whether the said order/judgment will have any binding precedence or to be followed. The issue of binding precedence fell for consideration before Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Orissa and Anr. vs. MamataMohanty, reported in (2011) 3 SCC 436 wherein at paragraphs 64 & 65 it has been held that whereby obvious inadvertence or oversight a judgment fails to notice a plain statutory provision or obligatory authority running counter to the reasoning and result reached., it may not have the sway of binding precedents. It should be a glaring case, an obtrusive omission. For ready reference these paragraphs of the aforesaid judgment are being quoted herein below :- “64. “Incuria” literally means “carelessness”. In practice per incuriam is taken to mean per ignoratium. The courts have developed this principle in relaxation of the rule of stare decisis. Thus the “quotable in law”, is avoided and ignored if it is rendered, in ignoratium of a statute or other binding authority. 65. In Mamelshwar Prasad vs. Kanhaiya Lal reported in (1975) 2 SCC 232 this Court held: (SCC P 235, para7) “7. … Where by obvious inadvertence or oversight a judgment fails to notice a plain statutory provision of obligatory authority running counter to the reasoning and result reached, it may not have the sway of binding precedents. It should be a glaring case, an obtrusive omission”. … Where by obvious inadvertence or oversight a judgment fails to notice a plain statutory provision of obligatory authority running counter to the reasoning and result reached, it may not have the sway of binding precedents. It should be a glaring case, an obtrusive omission”. (emphasis added)” It is evident from the aforesaid judgment that the definition of “incuria” literally means “carelessness”. In practice per incuriam is taken to mean per ignoratium. 24. This Court after considering the definition of per incuriam as has been dealt with by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Orissa and Anr. vs. Mamata Mohanty (supra) is of the view that the Hon'ble Patna High Court has allowed the writ petition by making observation that the Presiding Officer appears to have felt that he is ultimate supervisory authority but it is not a question of acting as ultimate supervisory authority rather it is to be seen as to whether the order has been passed in accordance with law or not as has been referred hereinabove that as per the provision as contained in subsection (3) to Section 18 the power of summoning can also be exercised as per the procedure laid down under the Code of Civil Procedure but with all due respect to the said judgment, there is no consideration of the provision of Section 18, more particularly subsection (3) thereof, therefore, this judgment will come under the fold of per incuriam and therefore, is not binding. 25. It is also not in dispute that judgment passed by Division Bench of any High Court is not binding rather the same can be taken into consideration while considering by the other High Courts but in the facts of this case, this Court is of the view that since in the aforesaid judgment passed by the Division Bench of the Hon'ble Patna High Court since there is no consideration of sub-section (3) to Section 18 which confers power upon the Tribunal to summon the concerned respondents for warranting his appearance necessary for proper adjudication and early disposal of the dispute/claim. 26. 26. The Tribunal has been constraint to pass an order as would be evident from order dated 10.04.2017 since the respondent has failed to file DRM's report, therefore, while passing such order the Tribunal has not exceeded his jurisdiction in view of the scope, intent and object of constituting the Claims Tribunal which is for speedy and proper adjudication of the issues but it is due to the respondent's attitude since the DRM's report has not been produced, delay was caused, therefore, such order has been passed. 27. As has been referred hereinabove that the Railway Claims Tribunal has been constituted for expeditious adjudication of the claim vis-a-viz, the quantum of compensation if the adjudication is in favour of the claimant. The adjudication can go either way i.e., either in the side of the Railway authorities or in the side of the claimant. If the adjudication will go in favour of the railway authorities, there will be no question of determination of quantum but if it will go in favour of the claimant then the question of determination of quantum of compensation would arise and that can only be quantified by the Tribunal by considering the reports in order to look into the nature of injury, extent of injury, negligence part which is the vital part of the matter in casting liability and these facts can only be gathered from the report prepared by the railway authorities. Otherwise also if the report which has been prepared by the railway authorities needs to be appreciated by the Railway Tribunal by providing the copy of the same upon the claimant or its dependent who are before the Claims Tribunal, meaning thereby, the report or any kind of document which has got bearing, needs to be produced before the Tribunal and if the Railway Claims Tribunal Act has been enactment, the railway authorities cannot suppose to act contrary to the spirit of the Act and if the document has not been produced, as the case herein, and if in such circumstances the Tribunal has passed an order for personal appearance, the same cannot be said to be in excess of jurisdiction rather it will be said to be for the purpose of proper adjudication of the issues in quantifying the compensation, as the case may be. 28. 28. In the entirety of the facts and circumstances, this Court is of the view that the order impugned needs no interference by this Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 29. It has been informed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that during pendency of the writ petition, award has been passed by the Tribunal, this Court is not making any comment upon that. 30. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. 31. Interlocutory application being I.A. No.3346 of 2017 also stands disposed of.