Back
2021 Supreme(Cal) 83
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Abhijit Gangopadhyay, J.
Trimula Sponge Iron Private Limited - Appellant
Versus
Union Of India & Ors - Respondent
W.P.A. No. 2961 of 2021
Decided On : 06-04-2021
Rudraman Bhattacharya, Advocate, Arijit Chakraborty, Advocate, Rajnish Kumar Kalawatia, Advocate, Ravi Soumya Roy, Advocate, D.K. Singh, Advocate
The central legal point established in the judgment is the significance of complying with mandatory provisions outlined in Rate Circular 36 of 2009 for availing concessional tariff for transportation, and the implications of non-compliance on the party's contentions and liabilities.
Headnote:
Railways - Transportation Dispute - Rate Circular 36 of 2009 - [Iron Ore Transportation] - [Rate Circular 36 of 2009, Para 3(A), Para 3(B), Clause 180] - The court discussed the provisions of Rate Circular 36 of 2009, specifically Para 3(A) and Para 3(B) which outlined the mandatory conditions for availing concessional tariff for domestic consumption at manufacturing units. The court highlighted the railway's authority's decision based on the non-compliance of these provisions by the petitioner, leading to the rejection of the petitioner's contention and the subsequent raising of additional bills by the railways.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a sponge iron ore plant, transported goods via railways and was issued two railway receipts. Subsequently, the railways raised further bills, leading to a dispute. The petitioner alleged illegal demand and filed a writ application.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the railway authority's decision was based on the non-compliance of mandatory provisions outlined in Rate Circular 36 of 2009 by the petitioner, leading to the rejection of the petitioner's contention. The writ application was dismissed, and the railway authority was granted the liberty to invoke the bank guarantee and realize the claimed amount with interest.
Issues: Dispute over raised railway bills, alleged illegal demand, non-compliance with mandatory provisions of Rate Circular 36 of 2009.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the railway authority's adherence to the mandatory provisions outlined in Rate Circular 36 of 2009 and the petitioner's non-compliance with the same, leading to the rejection of the petitioner's contention.
Final Decision: The writ application was dismissed, and the railway authority was granted the liberty to invoke the bank guarantee and realize the claimed amount with interest.
JUDGMENT
Abhijit Gangopadhyay, J. - This writ application has been filed by the petitioner who has a sponge iron ore plant in Chattishgarh. The petitioner brings iron ore by purchasing it from different areas of this country and those are transported mainly by railways. The petitioner was incorporated in the year 2004 and started production of sponge iron in the year 2006.
2. The present dispute is relating to raising of two bills by railways after the goods were transported by the petitioner through wagon to its manufacturing unit. For such transportation, two railway receipts one dated 29th February, 2012 and the other dated 4th May, 2012 was issued to him against which he paid the money for such transportation but subsequently, the railways raised further bills of Rs.82,86,273/- and Rs.62,42,974/-.
3. This is the bone of contention between the parties.
4. The two demand memos raised by the railways are found as annexure 'P-7" of the writ application.
5. The petitioner views this further raising of bills by the railways as illegal demand. It made contact with different officials to indicate the mistake made by the railways in raising those two bills but till date no result is yielded. Ultimately, on 11th May, 2012, he submitted one representation and as the representation was not considered he filed one writ application being W.P.11844(W) of 2012. After filing the writ application another notice for payment of the money which is annexure "P-12" of the writ application dated 19th February, 2013 was issued to him claiming the money. On 13.06.2014, he got an interim order of stay of operation of the said notice and the claim of money on the condition on furnishing bank guarantee of 60 per cent of the entire amount claimed by the railways. The final order in the said writ application was passed on 2nd January, 2020 directing the Principal Chief Commercial Manager of South Eastern Railway to consider the representation after giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing and to pass a reasoned order.
6. In this backdrop, the Principal Chief Commercial Manager of South Eastern Railway heard the petitioner on 22nd January, 2020 minute whereof has been annexed at page 165 of the writ application. On the date of such hearing, the writ petitioner was granted another opportunity to file one written representation consequent to the said personal hearing dated 22nd January, 2020 which they filed on 23rd January, 2020. On the basis of the personal hearing and on the basis of the circulars of railway, which are commonly known as "rate circular", the authority being Principal Chief Commercial Manager decided the matter rejecting the contention of the petitioner that railway erroneously raised the two demand memos for Rs.82,86, 273/- and Rs.62,42,974/-. While deciding the matter, in the speaking order the said authority has indicated clearly that rate circular no. 36 of 2009 was circulated with various clauses, which were to be complied with by the consignor/consignee in order to avail the concessional tariff for domestic consumption at their manufacturing units. As per the said rate circular no. 36 of 2009 for iron ore traffic booked to private siding the procedure was laid down. The said authority has elaborated the procedure by categorising the same by the said circular as "one time submission of documents" indicating the documents which were required to be filed by the consignor/consignee and the other one is "periodic submission of document".
7. The said authority has made it clear that these were the mandatory provisions which has been enumerated in para 3 for submission of affidavit in the prescribed format, which was given in the relevant paragraph of the rate circular. There was also a provision for furnishing an indemnity bond. After describing the basic conditions to be fulfilled for availing the concessional rate as above, the authority has proceeded to disclose the reasons for which raising of under-charges i.e. clause 180 plus
