Judgment:

DAS GUPTA, J. : This appeal by special leave arises out of a complaint made by the appellant, the Upper Doab Sugar Mills Ltd., Shamli, to the Raliway Rates Tribunal. The complaint as originally made was against the station to station rates on sugarcane on the Shahdara (Delhi) - Saharanpur Light Railway imposed by the respondent the Railway Company, by their rates Circular No. 8 of 1953 with effect from October 1,1953. The complaint was that these rates had been and were unreasonable. The Railway Company in their answer to the complaint pointed out that the rates imposed by the rate Circular No. 8 of 1953 had long before the date of the complaint ceased to be in force and that subsequent to the decision of this Court in Shahdara (Delhi) Saharanour Light Rly. Co. Ltd. v. Upper Doab Sugar Mills Ltd., Civil Appeal No. 347 of 1957 (Reported in (1960) 2 SCR 926: a new rate had come into operation from February 10,1960, under Local Rate Advice No. 2A of 1960. After this the complainant prayed for amendment of his complaint by adding a complaint against this new Advice rate. The prayer was allowed. The complaint as it stands after the amendment made on February 3, 1961, is both against the rates imposed under Local Rates Advice No. 8 of 1953 and also the rates under the new Advice No. 2A of 1960 and is that these rates and charges are all unreasonable.

2. The prayers are: (1) for a declaration that the rates charged under the Local Rates Advice No. 8 of 1953 and the surcharges were unreasonable from 1-10-1953 to 10-2-1960; (2) a declaration that the rates charged from 10-2-1960 under rate Advice No. 2A Of 1960 are also unreasonable; (3) a direction of refund of the excess collected or which may be collected after the date of the amendment of the complaint on the basis of rate Advice No. 2A of 1960 over the reasonable rates that may be fixed by the Tribunal and (4) the fixation of the rates as mentioned in the complaint as reasonable rates from various stations to Shamli.

3. The main contentions of the Railway Company with which we are concerned in the present appeal are: (1) that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as regards the reasonableness of rates prior to the institution of the complaint and (2) that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to grant any refund. These questions are raised in Issues Nos. 6 and 9A and are in these words :-

"6. Has the Tribunal jurisdiction to entertain or try the present complaint regarding reasonableness or otherwise of rates and/or charges prior to the institution of this complaint, or, at any rate, prior to 27-7-1958.

9A. Has this Tribunal jurisdiction to grant a refund."

4. The Tribunal rightly took up the consideration of these issues first. It held that it had no jurisdiction to entertain or try the complaint as regards the reasonableness or otherwise of rates and charges made prior to the institution of the complaint on May 6, 1960. It also held that it had no jurisdiction to grant any refund. In coming to these conclusions, the Tribunal followed the decision of the Madras High Court in Southern Railways v. Railway Rates Tribunal, (S) AIR 1955 Mad 476. It is contended before us in appeal that the Tribunal s decisions on these questions were wrong.

5. It will be helpful to consider briefly the background in which the Railway Rates Tribunal came into existence.

6. Till the establishment of these Tribunals the actions of the Government of India with regard to the regulations of rates and charges that may be charged by Railway Companies were largely influenced by the policy of laissez faire. The only provision as regards such a regulation was to be found for many years only in the contracts between the Government of India and the Railway Companies.

7. One of the earliest contracts with the Madras Railway Company, dated December 22, 1852, had a provisions that the Company could charge only such fares and tolls as might have been approved by the East India Company and that no inc