ORDER : This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to declare the action of respondents in insisting to pay scanning charges of Rs.10/- per non-leased package and Rs.5/- per leased package, as contrary to the agreement and consequently prayed this Court to direct the respondents not to collect scanning charges for parcels. 2. The case of the petitioner is that it is the company engaged in the business of parcel services and entered into an agreement with the respondents and the contract for leasing has commenced with effect from 05.11.2021 and valid upto 04.11.2026 for a period of five years. The lump sum leased freight payable for leasing of 3.9 tonnes parcel space in the FSLR by train No.12721 Dakshin Express from Hyderabad to Nizamuddin shall be Rs.24,384/- per day (accepted rate) for first three years, Rs.26,822/- per day with 10% escalation on the previous year leased freight from fourth year, Rs.29,504/- per day with 10% escalation on the previous year leased freight for fifth year. Further, 2% development charges shall be payable on the lump sum leased freight. The case of the petitioner is that the respondents are insisting the petitioner to pay Rs.10/- per non-leased package and Rs.5/- per leased package, towards scanning charges. It is stated that the respondents while entering into the agreement have not specified any amounts for collection as scanning charges and in the absence of said condition/covenant in the agreement, the respondents are not entitled to collect the same. It is further case of the petitioner that once the contract is reduced into writing with terms and conditions agreed upon between the parties, the same would be binding on the parties and therefore, the respondents are not having any power or authority to collect the scanning charges on the ground of change of policy. It is further case of the petitioner that contrary to the agreement, when the respondents insisted to pay the scanning charges for the packages, the petitioner has submitted a representation dated 15.06.2022 requesting to withdraw the additional scanning charges imposed on the petitioners for loading and unloading of their parcels. When there was no action, the present writ petition has been filed. 3. This Court granted interim order on 08.07.2022 directing the respondents not to insist for payment of scanning charges for the parcels, contrary to the terms of the agreement. When there was no action, the present writ petition has been filed. 3. This Court granted interim order on 08.07.2022 directing the respondents not to insist for payment of scanning charges for the parcels, contrary to the terms of the agreement. In the meanwhile, the respondents were directed to file counter affidavit but till date, no counter affidavit has been filed. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relying upon the agreement entered between the petitioner and the respondents has submitted that except collecting 10% escalation charges and 2% development charges payable on the lumpsum leased freight, the respondents are not having any power or authority to collect the scanning charges. It is further stated that Clause 3.2 of the agreement states that there shall be no escalation of lumpsum leased freight during the contractual period on account of Budgetary or any other increase in the tariff rates and therefore, the respondents are not having any power to increase the Tariff rates during the operation period of the contract and ultimately prayed to allow the writ petition as prayed for. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that the Railway Board, Ministry of Railways, Government of India, has issued modified policy guidelines on ‘Comprehensive Parcel Leasing Policy’ vide Circular No.06 of 2014 No.2013/TC(FM)/10/02 dated 15.04.2014 specifying the general guidelines for leasing of parcel space. It is further stated that as per Clause 11.1 of the said policy guidelines, the leaseholder will have to pay ‘Development Charge’, or any other charges levied by the Railway Administration on the freight over and above the lumpsum leased freight. It is further submitted that since the contract is entered subsequent to the policy guidelines, the Guidelines issued by the Government for collection of development charges or any other charges levied by the administration on the freight is applicable to the petitioner and petitioner is liable to pay scanning charges. 6. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made by both sides and the Modified policy guidelines on ‘Comprehensive Parcel Leasing Policy’ issued vide Circular dated 15.04.2014. Clause 11.0 of the said policy guidelines, states about levy of surcharges under the scheme. As per Clause 11.1, the leaseholder will have to pay ‘Development Charge’, or any other charges levied by the Railway Administration on the freight over and above the lumpsum leased freight. Clause 11.0 of the said policy guidelines, states about levy of surcharges under the scheme. As per Clause 11.1, the leaseholder will have to pay ‘Development Charge’, or any other charges levied by the Railway Administration on the freight over and above the lumpsum leased freight. Admittedly, the said clause is absent in the agreement entered between the petitioner and respondents. On the contrary, as per Clause 3.2 of the agreement, there shall be no escalation of lumpsum leased freight during the contractual period on account Budgetary or any other increase in the tariff rates. Collection of scanning charges in addition to tariff rate, on account of the policy of the Government would definitely amount to increase in tariff rate. Since it is the case of the respondents that scanning machines are introduced in the Railway Stations for the safety and security of the passengers on PPP model, the additional burden of payment of scanning charges should not be levied on the petitioner alone. It is well settled law that once the parties committed themselves to a written contract, whereby they reduced the terms and conditions agreed upon by them to writing, the same would be binding upon them. 7. The Constitution Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in General Assurance Society Ltd. vs. Chandumull Jain and another, AIR 1966 SC 1644 observed that in interpreting documents relating to a contract of insurance, the duty of the Court is to interpret the words in which the contract is expressed by the parties because it is not for the Court to make a new contract, however reasonable, if the parties have not made it themselves. 8. Thereafter, in Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation vs. Diamond & Gem Development Corporation Ltd, (2013) 5 SCC 470 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated that a contract, being a creature of an agreement between two or more parties, is to be interpreted giving the actual meaning to the words contained in the contract and it is not permissible for the Court to make a new contract, however reasonable, if the parties have not made it themselves. 9. It is stated that the petitioner has submitted representation dated 15.06.2022 requesting the respondents not to collect the additional scanning charges. 9. It is stated that the petitioner has submitted representation dated 15.06.2022 requesting the respondents not to collect the additional scanning charges. The letter dated 08.08.2022 of the Divisional Railway Manager, Commercial Branch, South Central Railway, Secunderabad, is extracted as under: SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAY Office of the Divisional Railway Manager Commercial Branch, 1st floor, Sanchalan Bhavan, Secunderabad No. C/C/37/Scanner/2022 Date: 08.08.2022 To Sri Mohd. Dastagir, Prop:M/s.J.N.Rail Cargo. H.No.4-26-9/2/C, Suleman Nagar, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad-500032. Ph.9030127721. Date: 08.08.2022 Sub: Charges for scanning of leased packages-reg. Ref: Your representation dated 15.06.2022 With reference to your representation under reference against the charges levied for scanning HYBPO, a detailed account is given below for further enlightenment, deeper understanding and cooperation from the esteemed customers, and it should not be misunderstood as blackmailing as mentioned in your representation As the issue of security is no longer be ignored and in view of the bomb incident in DBG Exp, installation of security scanners has become imperative. After the DBG issue. DG/Telangana has stressed the need for urgent installation of scanners in addition to other measures. This has made Railway Board to recognise the issue and take necessary steps to avoid such incidents in future. Installation of scanners involves huge capital investments, deployment of qualified staff and erection of suitable infrastructure, which will be a heavy burden on Government and also. time consuming. Moreover the burden to exchequer would lead to increase in freight charges, which adversely affects interests of both of us. In view of this, as adopted by various Govt. Agencies, it was proposed to procure and run scanning on PPP model. The proposal was duly sanctioned by the Competent Authority The fee was fixed, duly taking into consideration the interest of customers such that it is not a burden on the customers, in terms of Comprehensive Parcel Leasing Policy (Para 11). It is pertinent to mention that the parcel freight rates have not undergone revision since 2013. Hence in view of this, it is requested to cooperate with us and move together Sd/-xxxxx (Basavaraj. M) Sr.DCM/SC Copy to: All Lease holders of Secunderabad Division.” 10. A careful reading of the aforesaid letter would reveal that the respondents have not disputed the terms and conditions of the contract entered with the petitioner and they admitted to have no right to impose additional charges as scanning charges. M) Sr.DCM/SC Copy to: All Lease holders of Secunderabad Division.” 10. A careful reading of the aforesaid letter would reveal that the respondents have not disputed the terms and conditions of the contract entered with the petitioner and they admitted to have no right to impose additional charges as scanning charges. Clause 7.8 of the agreement entered with the petitioner states that in case of dispute, on the part of Railways obligations, where lease contract could not be operationalised by the leaseholder or suspended by Railway in certain circumstances like change of loading or unloading point, not providing service, not providing sufficient time for loading or other operational problems, Railway Administration (CCM) shall be empowered to deal with such situation as deem fit, depending upon the merit of the case. Further, Clause 25.0 of the agreement provides remedy for resolution of dispute, if any, between the parties, in the event the dispute is not resolved amicably by invoking the provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 11. In view of the above, the petitioners are permitted to submit a representation to the concerned Railway Administration (Chief Commercial Manager), in terms of Clause 7.8 of the agreement, within a period of two(02) weeks from today. In the event, the dispute between the parties is not resolved, the petitioner is at liberty to avail the remedy of invoking Clause 25 of the agreement. Pending disposal of the application by the Chief Commercial Manager, Railway Administration, the respondents are directed not to collect scanning charges of Rs.10/- per non-leased package and Rs.5/- per leased package from the petitioner. 12. With the above observations, this Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No order as to costs.