JUDGMENT : 1. With the consent of the parties, the matter has been heard through video conferencing. They have no complaint about any audio and/or video quality. 2. The instant intra-court appeal preferred under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is directed against the order/judgment dated 25.11.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 2664 of 2013, whereby and whereunder, the writ petition has been dismissed by giving liberty to approach the Railway Rates Tribunal for adjudication of the dispute. 3. Mr. Shankar Lal Agarwal, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that although the learned Single Judge has granted liberty to the writ petitioner to approach the Railway Rates Tribunal but the nature of dispute falling for consideration in this case is not such which warrants adjudication by the Railway Rates Tribunal. He has referred to the provision of Section 36 of the Railway Act, 1989 read with the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 wherein according to Mr. Agarwal, learned counsel, specific stipulation has been made about the nature of complaint to be filed before the Railway Claims Tribunal but the dispute involved in this case is not falling under the fold thereof. 4. Mr. Prashant Pallav, learned A.S.G.I. appearing for the respondents has seriously objected to such submission by making reference of the provision of Section 36 (c) of the Act, 1989 wherein it has been stipulated that the levy of any other charge which is unreasonable can also be dealt with by the Tribunal. According to him, the nature of allegation herein will come under the fold of other charge since the dispute herein is action of the authority of the Railway directing the petitioner to pay undercharge of Rs.64,78,370/- directly to the station by issuing bank draft in favour of the FA and CAO, as such, levy will come under the fold of ‘other charge’ as stipulated under Section 36(c) of the Act, 1989, therefore, the order which has been passed by the learned Single Judge by giving liberty to the writ petitioner to approach before the Tribunal does not warrant any interference. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and appreciated the argument advanced on their behalf as also gone across the material available on record. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and appreciated the argument advanced on their behalf as also gone across the material available on record. This Court, in order to assess as to whether the dispute which is the issue of the writ petition is coming under the fold of Section 36(c) of the Act, 1989 under any other charge for which the nature of the charge which has been levied herein, requires to be considered, for which, Section 36 of the Act, 1989 requires to be considered which reads as under: “36. Complaints against a railway administration.—Any complaint that a railway administration – (a) is contravening the provisions of section 70; or (b) is charging for the carriage of any commodity between two stations at a rate which is unreasonable; or (c) is levying any other charge which is unreasonable, may be made to the Tribunal, and the Tribunal shall hear and decide any such complaint in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter.” 6. It is evident from the provision of Section 36(c) wherein the complaint against railway administration can be filed before the Railway Claims Tribunal, if there is any contravention of the provision of Section 70; or is is charging for the carriage of any commodity between two stations at a rate which is unreasonable; or is levying any other charge which is unreasonable. It is evident from perusal of the ingredient as contained under Section 36(c) of the Act, 1989 which warrants adjudication by the Railway Claims Tribunal also includes levy of any other charge, therefore, this Court is required to scrutinize as to whether the nature of adjudication sought to be adjudicated falls under the category as stipulated under Section 36(c) of the Act, 1989 or not? This Court, for the aforesaid purpose has considered the speaking order dated 17.09.2012, appended as Annexure-5, which reflects under RC-36 of 2009 that the petitioner will utilize material falling for domestic consumption and not for any other purpose/export, then only he is entitled to get subsidized rate. This Court, for the aforesaid purpose has considered the speaking order dated 17.09.2012, appended as Annexure-5, which reflects under RC-36 of 2009 that the petitioner will utilize material falling for domestic consumption and not for any other purpose/export, then only he is entitled to get subsidized rate. If the party gets the benefit of 180 class rate without submission of correct documents, the Railway has the authority to collect the undercharge as per the rule, therefore, raising of undercharge as per the provision of RC-36 of 2009 is not a penal measure but that is the statutory liability of the party since he failed to submit proper documents at the time of offering goods to Railway which is mandatory to pay the correct charge that means the distance based charge as per rule and in consequence thereof, the difference has been calculated which comes to Rs.64,78,370/- . 7. The aforesaid decision of the Railway authority does reflect the liability of Rs.64,78,370/- casted upon the petitioner by way of a charge and not by way of penalty and once it is by way of charge and not by way of penalty, therefore, the writ petitioner is questioning the aforesaid charge, which according to the considered view of this Court, will come under the provision of Section 36(c) of the Act, 1989. 8. As such, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the subject matter of the lis cannot be adjudicated by the Railway Rates Tribunal, is not worth to be considered. 9. In view thereof, according to the considered view of this Court, the view which has been taken by the learned Single Judge holding the writ petition not maintainable on the ground of availability of remedy lying before the Railway Rates Tribunal, requires no interference. 10. Accordingly, the instant appeal fails and stands dismissed. 11. Pending interlocutory application, if any, also stands disposed of.