The Railway Rates Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine the reasonableness of the minimum wagon load charge under S.41(1)(b) and (c) of the Indian Railways Act, 1948.

RAJAGOPALA AIYANGAR, J.:- These two writ petitions are directed against the legality of the decision of the Railway Rates Tribunal, Madras, in complaint No.7 of 1952. The railway administrations against whom the complaint was filed, have filed W.P. No.81 of 1954, while the other is by the complainants before the Tribunal. Both the petitions raise for consideration the proper construction of S.41, Indian Railways Act and the jurisdiction of the Tribunal under that provision.

2. The complainants before the Railway Rates Tribunal were the Indian Paper Mills Association, Calcutta, which represented the Arvind Boards and Paper Products Ltd., Billimora, Surat, Bombay, Meerut Strawboard Mills in Uttar Pradesh and Straw Products Ltd., Bhopal, while the respondents were three railway administrations, namely, the Western Railway, Bombay, the Central Railway, Bombay and the Northern Railway, New Delhi. The complaint covered a wide field but the only material points which now remain for consideration are two (1) a complaint of excessive charges for the transport of raw materials to the mills and (2) a similar complaint in relation to strawboards proceeding from the mills.

3. These might be dealt with in that order. The most important raw material required for the manufacture of strawboard by the complainant-mills is of course "dry grass" and straw. These raw materials were carried at very favourable rates before 1-10-48 when a new tariff was introduced and these advantageous rates were withdrawn. In regard to these products, there was some relief afforded after the complaint in the shape of a wagon load scale but the complainants grievance was that this advantage of the wagon load scale was offset by three conditions which were imposed upon those availing themselves of this favourable rate. The first was a minimum distance charge of 20 miles, (2) an additional charge of 6 pies per maund if the distance covered was less than 75 miles and (3) a minimum charge per wagon of Rs.1-12-0 per ton or part thereof calculated on the marked carrying capacity of the wagon.

As the strawboard mills obtain their raw materials from within a short distance of their factories, all the three heads of minimum charges operate in their case and this was complained of as an unreasonable levy. This was the complaint in regard to the transport of raw materials to the factories. As regards the transport of finished products- strawboard-from the mills, the complaint was this. Before 1-10-1948 strawboard was classified under class I so that the lowest class-rate of tariff was applicable to it. Besides there used to be a number of station-to-station rates which the mills could take advantage of. All these were gradually abolished and after 1-10-1948 "strawboard" was classified under cl. 2 of the standard telescopic classification without any wagon load scale, so that the same class rate applied to both smalls as well as wagon loads.

The complainant-mills stated that they were regularly despatching traffic in wagon loads and that to require them to pay for wagon loads at the same rate as for small was the imposition or a levy of an unreasonable charge against them.

4. These were the two matters which were the subject-matter of enquiry and decision by the Tribunal.

5. The Railway administration denied the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to grant relief to the complainant in respect of any of the grounds of the complaint. Their contention was that the reliefs claimed did not fall within any of the sub-clauses of S.41(1) and that, on the other hand, the Central Government alone had the power to grant the reliefs under S.42(2)(a) or under S.29(2), Indian Railways Act. In regard to the charges levied on the commodities transported to the mills the Tribunal found that the minimum distance charge as well as the excess charge of 6 pies in the rupee for distances within 75 miles were reasonable and the complaint was rejected on the merits. These do not form the subject-matter of