CAV ORDER

The petitioner has challenged circulars of even date i.e 09.09.2014 issued by the respondent No.3 revising the chargeable distance to and from JSWT Siding Hubli Division over South Western railway with effect from 10.09.2014. It has also questioned the circular dated 29.02.2016 issued by respondent No.3 in so far as it relates to not allowing reopening of the past cases pertaining to over charges paid by the petitioner for the earlier period. The petitioner has also questioned various communications issued by respondent Nos.3, 4 and 5 refusing to refund the overcharges collected from it under the impugned circulars dated 09.09.2014.

2(i). The petitioner is a Public Limited Company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. It has established a steel plant at Toranagallu Bellary District. It claims that post liberalization, the State Government invited major steel companies to set up integrated steel plants. In 1994, Jindal Iron and Steel Company was chosen to set up a steel plant in association with Karnataka State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation (KSIIDC). Accordingly, a Company named Jindal Vijayanagar Steel Limited (JVSL) was incorporated in the year 1994 and the lands which were acquired for Vijayanagar Steel Limited was allowed to be used by JVSL by the State Government. The name of the Company JVSL was then changed to JSW Steel Limited.

(ii). It contends that in order to manufacture steel and generate energy, it requires raw materials such as iron ore, iron ore lumps, laterite lime Stone, coal and coke. In order to bring the raw material to the factory, the petitioner is dependent on the Indian railways. The raw materials are brought from various parts of the Country to the factory premises through railway wagons and shunted at factory premises. In order to bring the raw materials into the factory premises, a ‘Private Siding’ has to be constructed. This private siding connects the nearest ‘Railway Serving Station’ with the buffer end being the farthest point for charging inside the siding.

(iii). The Private Siding will be served from the nearest railway station which would be called the ‘Serving Station’. In the instant case, the petitioner claims that the nearest Serving Station to its steel plant is Toranagallu Railway Station in Bellary District. The distance from the nearest Serving Station to the buffer end of the Private Siding was earlier fixed as 7 Km. The goods / raw materials either coming from Goa via Gadignur or from Chennai via Toranagallu and from Ranjithpura via Banihatti had to come to the nearest ‘Serving Station’ i.e. Toranagallu. It is from Toranagallu, the goods / raw materials were brought into the siding (JSWT) into the ‘Buffer End’ point. The petitioner and respondent No.3 had entered into a Private Siding Agreement on 16.01.2007. This agreement prescribed the duties and obligations of the parties. A sketch was also appended to the Siding Agreement. Thereafter connecting points were directly created in respect of the raw materials / consignments coming from Goa via Gadignur and Ranjithpura via Banihatti were directly connected to the petitioner’s Private Siding with the ‘Buffer End’ of the petitioner’s premises. However, the raw materials or consignment coming from Chennai via Toranagallu was coming as usual from Toranagallu, the Serving Station and the distance between the Serving Station / connecting points to the Buffer End of the siding at the factory premises of the petitioner was within 7 Km. The petitioner claims that it paid the freight charges though there was a difference of one Kilometer without raising any dispute.

(iv). The respondent No.3 issued a circular dated 09.09.2014 revising the chargeable distance with effect from 10.09.2014 and gave a very short notice to the petitioner to respond. The petitioner claims that the chargeable distance was calculated taking into account the distance beyond the ‘Buffer End’ point and the revised distance