Failure to substantiate a claim and lack of material particulars in demand notices can lead to cancellation of the notices.

JUDGMENT

Moushumi Bhattacharya, J. - The writ petitioners pray for cancelling of four notices of demand issued by the South Eastern Railways in relation to stacking charges of the petitioners' goods at Barbil Railway Sidings. The impugned notices of demand were issued on 13th January, 2007, 14th august, 2008, 20th July, 2010 and 22nd December, 2011. By the first notice dated 13th January, 2007, the respondents / Railways claimed a sum of Rs. 11,26,56,480.00/- as stacking charges and referred to a joint inspection done on 3rd December, 2006. The said demand notice also contained a handwritten chart in support of the claim of Rs. 11,26,56,480.00/. The petitioners replied to the demand notice on 19th January, 2007 disputing the imposition of the wharfage charges. The respondents / Railways did not reply to this letter and issued a second demand notice dated 14th august, 2008 after a gap of 19 months. The second demand notice also raised an amount of Rs. 11,26,56,480.00/- which was identical to the first demand notice and asked the petitioners to treat the said notice as final and most urgent. The petitioners replied to the second demand notice by a letter dated 18th October, 2008 reiterating its objection to levying of the wharfage charges and demanded that the bills in that respect be dropped by the respondents. The respondents chose not to reply to the petitioners' letter and issued a third demand letter on 20th July, 2010 after a lapse of 21 months and a fourth demand letter on 22nd December, 2011 after 38 months.

2. The above facts are undisputed and the present writ petition was filed after the fourth demand letter dated 22nd December, 2011.

3. The affidavit-in-opposition of the respondents/ Railways states that the petitioners are liable for the payment demanded since the petitioners stacked 16,616 metric tons of iron ores in the Railway premises without permission and dumped the materials without authorisation. The position of the Railways is that the stacking of materials was detected by a joint team and calculated as per paragraph 7 of the Rates Circular No. 4(G) of 2006. It is also contended that a surprise inspection was carried out by a joint team on 2nd December, 2006 and a sketch map of stacking material was prepared on this basis showing the petitioners' stocks marked as serial no. 5 and 6 lying in the said godown.

4. The response of the Railways to the questions raised by the Court indicate that a joint inspection had been undertaken and the petitioners' stacking materials measured on the basis of the Rate chart. according to the Railways, the measurement was done on the basis of volume calculating length of the area of stacking materials multiplied by the breadth of the area of the stacking materials plus height which amounted to 16616 metric tons. The Railways further stated that the stacking materials were measured through volumetry process and divided in relation to 248 rakes which resulted in the quantification of Rs. 11,26,56,480/-. The Railways have also submitted that the guards engaged by the petitioners refused to put their signatures on the Report although they were approached to do so. The position is, however, that the guards appointed by the petitioners were present at the time of the joint inspection.

5. Upon hearing learned counsel appearing for the parties, the undisputed facts lead to certain questions. First, the dates of the impugned notices show that the respondents/ Railways were extremely lax on proceeding against the petitioners, even assuming they had a case against the petitioners. To repeat, the demand notices are dated 13th January, 2007, 14th august, 2008, 20th July, 2010 and 22nd December, 2011; thus being issued with gaps of 19 to 38 months in between each of the notices.

6. Second, the tenor of the impugned notices are vague and without any material particulars save for a hand-written calculation accompanied by an equally unclear sketch map. The letters do not indicate the basis of the de