SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Gau) 1179

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
KARDAK ETE, J.
M/S. Kalpataru Agro Forest Enterprise – Petitioner
Versus
The Union of India – Respondent
WP(C) 6303 of 2018
Decided On : 08-05-2025

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. D. Mazumder, Advocate
For the respondents:Mr. B. Sarma, SC, NF Railway, Advocate

Station to station rates cannot exceed freight for the shortest route; failure to comply with prior court orders is judicially unsustainable.

Headnote:(A) Railway Act, 1989 - Sections 30(1) and 32(a) - Goods Tariff Rule 125(1)(b) - Challenge to communication rejecting excess freight claim - Petitioner claimed excess freight based on the distance for transporting goods, stating they were charged for a longer route while goods were carried via a shorter route. - The Court emphasized that 'station to station rate' cannot exceed the freight for the shortest route. - The Railway administration failed to substantiate the freight calculation contrary to Court directions from prior orders. - Petitioner entitled to recalculation of excess freight. (Paras 12, 16, 30, 31)

(B) Jurisdiction - Writ petitions maintainable when prior orders are ignored, even if an appeal exists under the Railway Claims Tribunal Act. (Paras 30, 31)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a firm, contested the rejection of eight claims for excess freight charged in 1993-1994, alleging that charges were based on a longer route than transported.

Findings of Court:
The impugned orders by the Railway were quashed, and the matter remanded to the respondents for reassessment of freight based on the appropriate route.

Issues: Whether the Railway administration calculated the freight correctly and whether writ petition was maintainable despite the existence of appeal remedies.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the Railway administration must comply with prior orders regarding freight calculation and cannot charge excessive rates based on longer routes.

Result: Writ petition allowed and disposed of.

Table of Content
1. challenge to communication regarding freight charges. (Para 2 , 3)
2. petitioner's claims based on distance and route discrepancies. (Para 9 , 10 , 11)
3. court's observations on freight calculation standards. (Para 23 , 25 , 27)
4. court's directive for recalculation of freight charges. (Para 26 , 29)
5. final ruling directing authorities to comply with previous decisions. (Para 31 , 32 , 33)

JUDGMENT :

KARDAK ETE, J.

Heard Mr. D. Mazumder, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. T.Chakraborty, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, NF Railway appearing for the respondent nos.1, 2 and 3.

2. By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has put to challenge the impugned communication dated 26.04.2016 issued by the Chief Commercial Manager/FM (Court), Maligaon, Guwahati-11, whereby, the claim for calculation of the excess freight taken from the petitioner taking into consideration the distance factor and to release the excess freight to the petitioner after calculating the same has been rejected and the order dated 16.09.2016 passed by the Member (Judicial), Railway Claims Tribunal, Guwahati in Execution Nos. A-22/2015 (Ο.Α.No. 787/1994), A-23/2015 (Ο.Α.No. 788/1994), A-24/2015 (Ο.Α.No. 789/1994), A-25/2015 (Ο.Α.No. 792/1994), A-26/2015 (Ο.Α.No. 793/1994), A-27/2015 (Ο.Α.No. 794/1994), A-28/2015 (Ο.Α.No.795/1994), whereby, the execution petitions are disposed of as no order is required to be passed in view of the order dated 26.04.2016 issued by the Chief Commercial Manager/FM (Court), Maligaon.

3. The briefly put, the case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is a registered firm dealing with Bamboo Cuts which are supplied to different factories all over India. In the year 1993-1994, the petitioner supplied bamboo cuts from New-Bongaigaon to Amlai and the said consignments were sent through Railway carriage. But after delivery of the products, the petitioner firm came to know that the Railway authority has charged more freight from the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner firm instituted 8 (eight) claim applications before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Guwahati, claiming refund of the excess freight charged from the petitioner before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Guwahati claiming refund of the excess freight charged from the petitioner. The said Claim Applications were registered and numbered as C.A. Nos.787/1994, 788/1994, 789/1994, 791/1994, 792/1994, 793/1994, 794/1994 and 795/1994. The Railway authority contested the aforesaid Claim Applications and took a stand that station to station rate has been charged upon the petitioner and therefore, they are not entitled for any refund.

4. The aforesaid Claim Applications were disposed of by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Guwahati, vide common order dated 10.08.2001 and rejected the claims for refund of the excess freight charged from the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the said common order dated 10.08.2001, the petitioner preferred appeals before this Court being MFAs No.54/2002, 65/2002, 66/2002, 67/2002, 69/2002, 70/2002 and 71/2002.

5. This Court vide common order dated 17.08.2012 disposed of the above MFAs and directed the Railway administration to work out the freight chargeable at the relevant point of time for carrying the goods from New Bongaingaon to Amlai via Andal-Anara-Chakradharpur, in which route the goods were carried and to pay the petitioner the difference, if any, of the freight charged on the basis of "station to station rate” and the freight payable for carrying the goods in the aforesaid route, with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the claim petitions till the date of payment.

6. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an Execution Applications being Execution Nos.A-22/2015, A-23/2015, A-24/2015, A-25/2015, A-26/2015, A-27/2015 and A-28/2015 before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Guwahati for recovery/realization of the excess payments as claimed and directed by this Court.

7. In the meantime, t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top