The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 provides a complete mechanism for claiming a refund of freight charges, and the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution should be exercised consistent with the provisions of the enactment.

Headnote:
Mistake - Refund of Freight Charges - Railways Act, 1989, Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 - Section 106, Section 13, Section 15, Section 16, Section 17, Section 23 - The court discussed the relevant provisions of the Railways Act, 1989 and the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987. It highlighted the limitations for claiming compensation and refund of overcharge under Section 106, the jurisdiction and powers of the Claims Tribunal under Section 13, and the bar of jurisdiction under Section 15. The court also emphasized the procedure for filing claims before the Tribunal and the period of limitation under Section 17. The judgment focused on the legal framework provided by these acts and sections and how they influenced the court's decision to dismiss the writ petition.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioners sought a refund of Rs. 3,56,69,671 from the Central Government, claiming that the amount had been collected from them by mistake as freight charges for the transportation of coal. The respondents contended that the petitioners should seek a remedy under the provisions of the Railways Act, 1989 for adjudication of the claim for refund.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 provided a complete mechanism for correcting any error, whether of fact or law, and that the remedy for claiming a refund was provided by way of a claim before the Tribunal. It concluded that it would not be appropriate for the court, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, to give relief that authority, in law, had been vested in the Claims Tribunal under section 13 of the Claims Tribunal Act, 1987.
Issues: The main issue was whether the court should issue a writ directing the Central Government to refund the amount collected from the petitioners by mistake, or if the petitioners should seek a remedy under the provisions of the Railways Act, 1989 for adjudication of the claim for refund.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the provisions of the Railways Act, 1989 and the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, which provided a specific remedy and forum for claiming a refund of freight charges. It emphasized that the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution should be exercised consistent with the provisions of the enactment.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the rule discharged, without prejudice to the right of the petitioners to seek remedy before the appropriate forum, if so advised.

JUDGMENT - B.P. SINGH, C.J.:---The question, which arises for consideration in the instant writ petition is whether this Court, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, should issue an appropriate writ, order or direction directing the Central Government to refund to the petitioners a sum of Rs. 3,56,69,671, which has been collected from the petitioners over a period of time by mistake, in view of the fact that the circular under which the charges were initially made leviable had been withdrawn. While the petitioners contend that payment of the charges having been made, and collected, under a mistake, the petitioners are entitled to maintain this writ petition praying for the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to refund the amount charged in excess, the respondents contend that the petitioners cannot maintain the instant writ petition for the reliefs prayed for, and must necessarily seek a remedy under the provisions of the Railways Act, 1989 for adjudication of such a claim for refund.

2. The facts of the case, which are not in dispute, are :---

Petitioners Rajasthan State Electricity Board, are an autonomous public body, wholly owned and controlled by the State Government of Rajasthan. For the generation of electricity at their Thermal Power Station at Kota (Rajasthan), coal is transported from collieries situate in areas covered by the Eastern and South Eastern Railways to station called Gurla, situate in Kota Division of the Western Railway. Between the 4th March, 1992 and 31st December, 1992, the petitioners booked 248 rakes for carrying coal to Gurla. The routes on which these wagons were transported include a section of Central Railway, viz. Katni Singrauli. In exercise of powers under section 71 of the Railways Act, 1989, the Central Government had imposed, for movement of coal wagons over this section "inflated distance rate" of freight. Consequently, for the coal wagons moved by the petitioners, the freight included the inflated distance rate for this particular section of Katni Singrauli. For the wagons booked by the petitioners, freight was paid at Gurla Station of Kota Division of the Western Railway. The railway authorities charged the petitioners freight on the basis of inflated distance rate over Katni Singrauli Section upto 31st December, 1992, but from the 1st January, 1993, the railways started charging freight on the basis of actual distance for Katni Singrauli Section, instead of inflated distance rate, and the petitioners paid the charges on that basis.

3. The case of the petitioners is that in August, 1995, it came to learn from the Gujarat Electricity Board that the inflated distance rate on Katni Singrauli section had been dispensed with, and had been brought back to actual distance charge from 1st March, 1992. The petitioners then realised that the railway authorities had, without authority of the Central Government, charged, and realised from, the petitioners inflated distance rate, which was not only illegal, but also void ab initio, since the inflated distance rate had been abolished with effect from 1st March, 1992. The petitioners, therefore, wrote letters to the various railways authorities in August, 1995, including the Railway Board, the Chief Claims Officer of the Western Railway and the Senior Divisional Commercial Manager of the Kota Division. The Senior Divisional Commercial Manager of the Kota Division replied to the petitioners communication and observed that they had neither received any circular, nor was any such circular available in their office, regarding the withdrawal of freight of inflated distance over Katni Singrauli section of South Eastern Railway with effect from 1st March 1992. It, therefore, appears that the Senior Divisional Commercial Manger of the Kota Division was not aware of any circular withdrawing the freight of inflated distance over the aforesaid section with effect from 1st March, 1992. He further advised the petitioners that in case they wishe

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2001 Supreme(Bom) 219

Cases Referred (1)