Rajamannar, C.J.-Both these petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution are directed against the Railway Rates Tribunal in respect of their proceedings on a complaint filed by a firm called the Engineering Supplies Co., Bombay, who carry on business in cast-iron pipes, among other things, against the Southern Railway and the Central Railway under sections 28 and 41(1) of the Indian Railways Act, 1890. The principal iron and steel manufacturing centres of India are Bhad-ravati in Mysore and Bisco, Barnpur and Tatanagar in Bihar and Bengal. Bisco is the place where the factory of Bengal Iron and Steel Company is situated. The railways had been quoting special rates for the transport of cast-iron pipes to various cities and towns in the country for over 20 years. From 15th October, 1949, the full tariff rate for cast-iron pipes from Bhadravati to Bombay was Re. 1-15-1, but the special rate being charged was Re. 1-3-6. The full tariff rate from Bisco to Bombay was Rs. 3-3-8 from 15th October, 1949, but the special rate being charged was Re. 1-6-10. This rate was however, cancelled from 1st April, 1952. The com-plainant who imports cast-iron pipes from Baadravati to Bombay and other stations-complained to the railway that there was an undue preference shown for Bisco, which was in contravention of section 28 of the Indian Railways Act. The firm also applied to the railways to quote a special station-to-station rate from Bhadravati to Kalyan and Ambernath, intermediate stations between Bhadravati and Bombay. As the firm got no relief from the railways, they filed the complaint. Several reliefs were claimed by the complainant firm, namely, that reduced station-to-station rates may be fixed for the carriage of cast-iron pipes from Bhadravati to Bombay on the basis of the same percentage reduction or maund mile return yielded by the Bisco-Bombay rate, and from Bhadravati to Badlapur, Ambernath and Kalyan on an appropriate and consequential basis, that it should be declared that so long as the special rate from Bisco to Bombay and from Bhadravati to Bombay, Poona and other stations remained in force, that is, up to 1st April, 1952, the refusal to quote new station-to-station rates and the rate charged to the complainant was unreasonable and contravened section 28 of the Indian Railways Act, and that the excess sum collected from the complainant by the railways for traffic from Bhadravati to Bombay from 15th October, 1949 and from Bhadravati to Ambernath and Kalyan from January, 1951, may be refunded, and that it should be declared that the cancellation of the special rate from Bhadravati to Poona for cast-iron pipes also and in consequence the charging of the rate of Re. 1-9-7 for cast-iron pipes as against Re. 1-1-11 for all other articles of iron and steel, Division B, contravened section 28 of the Act, and that the said cancellation be directed to be withdrawn and proper station to station rates from Bhadravati to Poona, Badlapur, Ambernath and Kalyan should be fixed. The railways pleaded that the com- plainant was not entitled to any of the reliefs sought. Another firm, Messrs. Hindustan Materials Ltd., Bombay, intervened in the proceedings on the side of the complainant, and prayed for certain reliefs in respect of the rate from Bhadravati to Bombay, from Bhadravati to Kalyan, and Ambernath, and from Bnadravati to Poona. Several issues were framed on the pleadings. The complaint was heard fully by the Railway Rates Tribunal. Of the three members of the Tribunal, the President and one of the members, Mr. Roy, held that the only relief the complainant was entitled to was a declaration that from January, 1951, the station-to-station rates for the transport of cast-iron pipes in wagon load ex-Bhadravati to Ambernath and Kalyan should have been the then prevailing station-to-station rates ex-Bhadravati to Bombay plus the usual re-booking charges to Ambernath and Kalyan respectively at the prevailing tariff rate, and that it wa

Click Here to Read the rest of this document