IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Present:

THE HON’BLE JUSTICE HARISH TANDON &

THE HON’BLE JUSTICE PRASENJIT BISWAS FMA 658 of 2023 with CAN 5 of 2022 CAN 6 of 2024 CAN 7 of 2024 Union of India Vs.

Electrosteel Castings Ltd. & Anr.

Appearance:

For the Appellants : Mr. Pramit Kumar Ray, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Navneet Misra, Adv.

Ms. Atmaja Bandyopadhyay, Adv.

For the Respondent : Mr. Samrat Sen, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Mainak Bose, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Gupta, Adv.

Mr. Nikhil Jhunjhunwala, Adv.

Mr. Sarthak Makkar, Adv.

Judgment on : 27.02.2025 HARISH TANDON, J.

The gamut of dispute involved in the instant appeal are basically founded upon the levy of the registration fees to the tune of Rs. 10 crores on the basis of a Freight Marketing Circular no. 12 of 2008 dated August 28, 2008 which was conspicuously withdrawn by a Freight Marketing Circular no. 24 of 2014 dated November 17, 2014 and the excess license fees charged by the appellant and sought to be adjusted from the future license fees. For the aforesaid charging of the registration fees and the licensing fees, the claim was made for refund of the same along with an interest as according to the writ petitioner/respondent the Railway has acted contrary to their own policies, circulars and the other communications made in this regard. The question, therefore, arises in this appeal is whether the levy and the payment of the registration fees to the tune of Rs. 10 crores and charging of an excess license fees are liable to be refunded to the writ petitioner or to be adjusted against the future license fees or the freight chargeable on the writ petitioner/respondent.

Before we proceed to decide the aforesaid disputes which, in fact, are agreed by the appearing Counsels to have involved in the instant case; the salient facts are succinctly narrated hereinafter. The writ petitioners/respondent are the manufacturer of an iron steel products which requires an iron ores from the different mines to be brought to the factory by iron rakes. There was a spurt of demand of iron ore as the China being the major importers for that the loading stations around the major mines situated in Orissa and Jharkhand did not have the requisite capacity to load the huge number of rakes. The Government of India formed the policy on Public Private Partnership (PPP) Model permitting the intending users of the Railway Rakes to construct the private siding either in their own land or the land owned by the Railways at their cost and expenses to develop the infrastructure for mechanical loading of those products at their expenses. Such policy was framed by the Ministry of Railways for licensing the Railway land for commercial plots by virtue of a Master Circular dated February 10, 2005 providing that the rate of the license fee shall be 6 per cent of the land value in relation to the land used for a private siding and the value of the land shall be fixed on the basis of an adjacent areas as on January 1, 1985 which shall be increased by 7 per cent per year.

The writ petitioner/respondent, being in dire need of a huge numbers of Railway rakes, applied for construction of a private siding which was approved on February 6, 2006 by the Railways in principle. The said proposal was approved and received a railway transport clearance on June 23, 2006. Subsequently, the writ petitioner/respondent submitted the detailed project report for construction of a private siding which was approved in the month of October, 2007. After the commissioning of the project, the provisional bills towards land rent was raised by the appellant. The writ petitioner/respondent deposited the same on the basis of the said provisional bill under protest. Further demand was made for payment of a non-refundable registration fees of Rs. 10 crores for the said siding in terms of the Freight Marketing Circular no. 12 of 2008 which was also deposited under protest. Subsequently, the writ petitioner/respondent raised dispute with regard to the lic