Back
1999 Supreme(AP) 1114
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : ELLEN DHARKAR
Syed Muneer Raza - Appellant
Versus
Chairman, Railway Board, New Delhi - Respondent
Decided On : 12-07-99
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code , 1863 - Section 354 - Constitution of India – Articles 226 , 227 , 14 , 19 and 21 - Railways Act, 1989 - Section 64 - Section 66 - Section 73 - Section 79 - Section 78 - Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 - Section 13 - Railway Rules 117 - Air Force Act, 1950 - Navy Act 1957 - Army Act, 1950 – Transportation and Delivery through Railways - Averments made in writ petition filed by one are briefly as follows petitioners do business in mango forwarding and transporting from Nuzvid, Andhra Pradesh to New Delhi - During 1998 petitioners registered on rake load indent vide Way Bill with 19 NMG wagons land was loaded with mangoes at Nuzvid Railway Station - Railway authorities have conducted test weighment of 10% of baskets loaded and have accepted weighment particulars given by petitioner, which was as per Railway Rules - He further submitted that respondent have detained rake at Jhansi, Uttar Pradesh, and conducted reweighment of entire rake and issued particulars of weighment arrived at by them at Jhansi at weigh bridge and register of weigh bridge at Jhansi disclosed 70 - 7 tonnes excess weight thereby respondents have collected Rs - 4,97,767 - 00 from his consignees at New Delhi vide money receipt - He also stated that he objected action of respondents by his letter stating that weighment procedure adopted by them is faulty, unscientific and requested for justice by re-weighment at Naya Azadpur, but respondent authorities have refused his request for re-weighment by their letter – Held , With regard to contention that no notice was given while weighing mangoes at Jhansi - Empowers railway administration on request made by consignee or endorsee, allow weighment of consignment subject to such conditions and on payment of such charges, as may be prescribed, and demurrage charges if any provided that except in cases where a railway servant authorized in this behalf considers it necessary so to do, no weighment shall be allowed of goods booked at owner s risk rate or goods which are perishable and are likely to lose weight in transit - exception provided in this section amply applies to goods booked by petitioners herein viz - Mangoes, which are perishable goods - Therefore, while exercising power respondents-railway administration has weighed mangoes by itself, inasmuch as reweighment after issue of notice may take considerable time and may effect very nature of consignment - Therefore, exercising power vested in railways, reweighed goods - That apart, action of respondents in exercise of powers is an administrative action and therefore, issuance of notice does not arise – There was an occasion for Apex Court to consider which prescribes to make a claim within a period of six months from date of delivery of goods for refund of excess freight collected by railway administration, in a decision Birla Cement Works - In said case, claimant filed claim petition after expiry of six months before Tribunal - As petitioner therein approached Tribunal beyond limitation same was dismissed and matter was carried from High Court to Supreme Court - When Tribunal and High Court have held that claim is maintainable, but Supreme Court reversed judgments of both Tribunal and High Court holding that limitation is not applicable and as claim has to be made within a period of six months from date of delivery - Though decision in Birla Cement s case does not have any bearing on facts and circumstances of case, but ratio that emerges from above decision is that claimant has to approach Claims Tribunal first for refund of excess freight collected by Railway Administration - Therefore, filing of present writ petitions before this Court straightaway for refund of excess freight charges collected by railway administration, without seeking relief before Claims Tribunal, are not maintainable - Caimants have to first approach Tribunal constituted under Act, for redressal of grievance - Writ petitions dismissed
( 1 ) THIS batch of writ petitions can be disposed of by a common order, as the point involved in all the writ petitions is one and the same.
( 2 ) ALL these writ petitions are filed by the mango traders who export mangoes from Nuzvid to New Delhi under a consignment entrusted to Railway administration to transport and deliver the same at its destination at New Delhi.
( 3 ) THE petitioners have questioned the action of the Respondent No. 9. The Chief Goods Supervisor, Northern Railways, Jhansi, Uttar Pradesh, in issuing re-weighment particulars by arriving overweight vide the order dated 5-6-1998 and consequently collecting the under charges of Rs. 4,97,767. 00 from the petitioner in WP No. 9796/99 (vide money receipt Nos. 777628 to 777635 by the third respondent. The Chief Parcel Supervisor, Naya Azadpur Railway Station, New Delhi); Rs. 85,387. 00 from the petitioner in W. P. No. 9830/99 (vide money receipt Nos. 777636 to 777639 by the third respondent); Rs. 91,193. 00 from the petitioner in W. P. No. 9838/99 (vide money receipt Nos. 777623 to 777627 by the third respondent) and Rs. 24,915. 00 from the petitioner in W. P. No. 9858/99 (vide money receipt Nos. 777640 and 777641 by the third respondent) and Rs. 4,31,038. 00 from the petitioner in W. P. No. 9909/99 (vide money receipt Nos. 777617 to 777622 by the third respondent); as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Arts. 14, 19 (1) (g) and 21 of the Constitution of India.
( 4 ) THE averments made in the writ petition No. 9796/99 filed by one Syed Muneer Raza, are briefly as follows :the petitioners do business in mango forwarding and transporting from Nuzvid, Andhra Pradesh to New Delhi. During 1998 the petitioners registered on rake load indent vide Way Bill Nos. 0993234 to 0993252 with 19 NMG wagons land was loaded with mangoes at Nuzvid Railway Station. The railway authorities have conducted test weighment of 10% of the baskets loaded and have accepted the weighment particulars given by the petitioner, which was as per the Railway Rules. He further submitted that the respondent have detained the rake at Jhansi, Uttar Pradesh, and conducted reweighment of the entire rake and issued particulars of weighment arrived at by them at Jhansi at weigh bridge No. 46 and the register of the weigh bridge at Jhansi disclosed 70. 7 tonnes excess weight thereby the respondents have collected Rs. 4,97,767. 00 from his consignees at New Delhi vide money receipt Nos. 777628 to 777635. He also stated that he objected the action of the respondents by his letter Dt. 6-6-1998 stating that the weighment procedure adopted by them is faulty, unscientific and requested for justice by re-weighment at Naya Azadpur, but the respondent authorities have refused his request for re-weighment by their letter Dt. 6-6-1998. The respondent No. 8. The Chief Commercial Manager, Refunds, Northern Railways, New Delhi also refused to refund the under charges by his letter dt. 21-9-1998.
( 5 ) IT is further stated by the petitioner that the consignees at New Delhi have withheld and adjusted his transportation charges and the earlier amounts due from them to him thereby making him to suffer for no fault of him and further at his request the consignees at New Delhi gave letter of authority dt. 2-1-1999 for claiming refund of the under charges. Therefore, he contends that the action of the respondents in refusing to re-weigh the mangoes at Naya Azadpur Railway Station and to refund the excess amount collected by them is violative of principles of natural justice. He further contends that when once the goods are accepted under senders weightment system and have re-weighted the goods at Jhansi Railway Station, Bridge No. 46 without giving notice to the petitioner is illegal land contrary to the principles of natural justice, that his request for re-weighment at Naya Azadpur Railway Station was specifically refused and the respondent No. 8 also refused to refund the undercharges; that as per Rule 117 of
