SHRI MANJEE YADAV SAPTARSHI ROY vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. — WPA/11448/2026

Case under Railways Act ,1989 Section NA. Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED on 10th June 2026.

Case disposed Next hearing 10-Jun-2026

CNR: WBCHCA0222952026

Filing Number

WPA/11309/2026

Filing Date

18-May-2026

Registration No

WPA/11448/2026

Registration Date

18-May-2026

Judge

Hon'ble Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma

Coram

Hon'ble Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

GROUP A (WRIT MATTERS) ( 1 )

Sub-Category

ALLOTMENT/CANCELLATION OF WAGON & RAKES ( 4 )

Judicial Branch

MANDAMUS SECTION

Decision Date

10-Jun-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISPOSED

Last updated 11-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Railways Act ,1989 Section NA

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SHRI MANJEE YADAV SAPTARSHI ROY

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

  2. 2.SOUTH EASTERN RAILWAY

  3. 3.THE PRINCIPLE CHIEF COMMERCIAL MANAGER, SER

  4. 4.THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL COMMERCIAL MANAGER, SER

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 10-Jun-2026

    Hon'ble Justice Dinesh Kumar SharmaView PDF

    The court disposed of the petition challenging South Eastern Railway's rejection of the petitioner's claim for lump sum lease freight adjustment by converting it into a representation to be decided by the respondent authority within three weeks with a hearing opportunity. The petitioner reserved the right to challenge the subsequent order, and averments were not treated as admitted due to lack of respondent's affidavit. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 10-Jun-2026

    New Motion

    Hon'ble Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma

  4. 18-May-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. WPA/11448/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The court disposed of the petition challenging South Eastern Railway's rejection of the petitioner's claim for lump sum lease freight adjustment by converting it into a representation to be decided by the respondent authority within three weeks with a hearing opportunity. The petitioner reserved the right to challenge the subsequent order, and averments were not treated as admitted due to lack of respondent's affidavit. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case