IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the protection of vested rights under the 2005 Circular and the impact of subsequent Circulars on those rights.

JUDGMENT :

SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA, J.

1. The petitioner no. 1 is a partnership-Firm and the petitioner no. 2 is one of its partners. The firm carries on mining and mineral trading business in the States of Odisha and Jharkhand having its office at Kolkata and has been supplying critical raw materials in the form of iron-ore to the steel industry.

2. The Indian Railways issued a Circular bearing no. 99/TC (FM)/26/1 on March 31, 2005 thereby liberalizing rules relating to Railway sidings. Pursuant to the said Policy, the petitioners submitted a proposal for availing its own private railway siding at Bolani Khadan Railway Station for loading and transportation of iron-ore. The said proposal was approved and accordingly, the petitioner no. 1 commenced construction of the siding, for which permission was also given after initially withholding the same from 2010 to 2019 on the ground of fixing market value and licence fee.

3. In early 2020, the petitioners had already completed construction of the siding and asked the respondents to take steps for signing of the Land Licensing Agreement and early commissioning of the railway sidings.

4. The respondent-Authorities demanded payment of sums aggregating to Rs. 11,26,56,480/- on account of stacking charges. The petitioners moved this Court and vide order dated March 16, 2022, the claim of the respondents was quashed.

5. Meanwhile on December 15, 2021, the respondents-Railways had published a Master Circular on Gati Shakti Multi-Modal Cargo Terminal (GCT) which was further amended on June 14, 2022 and December 6, 2022.

6. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners argues that the insistence of the respondents that the petitioners agreed to enter into a Land Licensing Agreement under the 2021/2022 Policy is unjust and contrary to the agreement previously entered into between the parties. It is contended that the petitioners' railway siding was already ready for commissioning, for which in-principle approval was granted and trial runs of locomotives had already been undertaken after issuance of a Tack Fitness Certificate. A Completion Certificate was also formally issued, certifying that the private siding of the petitioners was complete and ready for commercial commissioning. By a letter dated April 21, 2020, the Chief Electrical Distribution Engineer of the Railways formally granted its approval certifying energization of OHE with 25 KV AC system in favour of the petitioner no. 1.

7. As per Clauses 1.2 and 1.3 of the GCT Circular of 2022, existing and partly commissioned sidings are allowed to be governed by the previous Circulars and are given an option to migrate to GCT. It is argued that the arbitrary cut-off for sidings which were completed in all respects but were not yet commissioned is violative of natural justice.

8. It is argued that since the petitioners had invested huge amount by acting on the 2005 Circular, Land Licensing Agreement is to be executed under the said Circular. It is submitted that the Land Licensing Agreement could not be entered into only due to the unlawful insistence of the respondents on the petitioners paying a huge amount of Land Licence fees and Stacking Charges which was subsequently quashed by this Court.

9. The private siding of the petitioners at Bolani Khadan, it is argued, continues to be governed by the Circular dated March 31, 2005 since it has not been expressly repealed by the GCT Circular dated December 6, 2022. It is argued that the private siding of the petitioners could not be commercially commissioned only on account of the wrongful acts of the respondent-Authorities, of which the respondents cannot now take advantage. The respondents arbitrarily pressed in its letter dated February 3, 2020 that the petitioners pay a sum of Rs. 11,26,56,480/- towards stacking charges before commissioning of the private siding. By a judgment and order dated March 16, 2022 passed in WP No. 101 of 2012, this Court set aside the said claim.

10. The petitioners had also