The court's decision reaffirmed the importance of factual analysis and the authority of tribunals in fact-finding, emphasizing the need for clear and convincing reasons in reaching a decision.

R.MAHADEVAN, J.

This writ petition has been filed to quash the order passed by the third respondent dated 25.08.2015 in Complaint No.3 of 2010 and to direct the second respondent to refund the excess amounts collected hitherto from the petitioner along with interest.

2. The facts leading to the filing of this writ petition are as follows:

The petitioner-M/s. Krishnapatnam Port Company Limited has been promoted by C.V.R. Group of Companies and the petitioner-port was commissioned on 07.07.2008 with an outlay of Rs.1500 Crores for the first phase and Rs.4000 Crores for the second phase. It is stated that the present turnover of the company is around Rs.600 Crores. It is also stated by the petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition that the petitioner has handled 8.21 million tones of cargo in the year 2008-2009 and 16.13 million tones in the year 2009-2010 in their port. The petitioner has been loading coal from October 2008 at Nidiguntapalem Station and from May 2009 at Krishnapatnam Station. Rake No.151 was loaded with coal on 13.11.2010, Rake No.152 was loaded with coal on 14.11.2010 and Rake No.153 was loaded with coal on 15.11.2010. Since the Railways did not provide in-motion rail weighbridge at Krishnapatnam Station, weighment of the rakes had to be done at Settigunta Station, which is about 200 Kms from Krishnapatnam Station. It was claimed by the Railways that Rake Nos.151, 152 and 153 were found to be overloaded based on the weighment done at Settigunta Station and hence, the Railways levied punitive charges as well as detention charges to the tune of Rs.70,71,783/- and Rs.3,99,400/- respectively. After weighment at Settigunta Station, Rake No.151 was stabled at Ontimitta Station, Rake No.152 was stabled at Hastavaramu Station and Rake No.153 was stabled at Ontimitta Station, due to the alleged excess loading. Since it was alleged that these rakes were overloaded, the petitioner was asked to off-load the alleged excess coal from the three rakes. Since the stations mentioned above had no infrastructure for loading or unloading of rakes and there were no approach roads for trucks to reach the loop lines on which the rakes were stabled, and no lighting facilities exist on the loop lines, and due to lack of infrastructure for handling bulk cargo, the cargo had to be off-loaded on the track side and it was carried by head loads for a distance of about 600 meters to the trucks, parked on the road. In view of this, the petitioner suffered heavy loss of cargo.

3. The petitioner states that the petitioner-Company had loaded 374 rakes prior to the above three rakes and none of those rakes were found to be overloaded. The petitioner also states that the coal is lighter in weight and the density of the coal is directly correlated to certain atmospheric conditions like wetness, moisture etc. Further, it is stated that in October 2009, Nellore District was experiencing heavy rainfall. After the cargo was loaded, Rake No.151 remained at Krishnapatnam Station for 11 hours, Rake No.152 for 15½ hours and Rake No.153 for 5 hours, respectively. The wagons were dripping with water when weighment was done. The wetness was also found on the track as the water was dripping from the wagons. It is stated by the petitioner that the Chief Commercial Inspector of Guntakal Division of South Central Railway, stationed at Kadapa, who was inspecting the offloading of the rakes, had also witnessed the same. Thus, the petitioner states that excess weight alleged by railway administration was due to accumulation of rain water in the wagons and it was not at all due to overloading. It is further stated by the petitioner that loading of coal at Krishnapatnam Station is done under the supervision of the Railway Staff posted at the station for this purpose and the rakes were cleared for dispatch only after the railway staff were satisfied that the rakes were loaded as per the terms and conditions of the Railways. The petitioner a