Union Of India vs M/S S.R. Ferro Alloys (A Registered Partnership Firm) Through Arjun Singh Sachan

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2021 Supreme(Online)(MP) 4390

[1]
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR MADHYA PRADESH: BENCH AT INDORE
(Division Bench)
W.A. No.42/2021 UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS …APPELLANTS Versus M/S S.R. FERRO ALLOYS
(A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM)
THROUGH ARJUN SINGH SACHAN …RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Coram:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mohammad Rafiq, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sujoy Paul, Judge
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Presence:
Mr. H.Y. Mehta, Advocate for the Appellants.
Mr. R.S. Chhabra, Advocate for the Respondent.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Whether approved for reporting: Yes
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Law Laid Down:
 Railways Act, 1989 – Sec. 73 (Punitive charge for overloading a wagon), Sec.74 (Passing of property in the goods covered by railway receipt), Sec. 79 (Weighment of consignment on request of the consignee or endorsee); Railway (Punitive Charges for Overloading of Wagon) Rules, 2005 - Rule 3 (Punitive charges for overloading) – Questions (A) Whether the weighbridge at the point of re-weighment was defective at some point of time earlier and therefore, the claim of the Railways was misconceived, being a disputed question of fact and (B) whether the request for re- weighment could have been made only by the consignor and not by the consignee or his endorsee, could be agitated by the aggrieved party by way of statutory remedy provided under the Railways Act before the Railway Claims Tribunal or in a suit or before any other statutory forum.
 Section 73 of the Railways Act postulates punitive charges for overloading a wagon and proviso thereto amplifies its scope by stipulating that it shall be lawful for the Railway administration to unload the goods loaded beyond the capacity of the wagon, if detected at the forwarding station or
[2]
at any place before the destination station and to recover the cost of such unloading and any charge for the detention of any wagon on this account. Rule 3 of the Rules of 2005 also empowers the Railway administration to recover punitive charges on account of overloading of commodities from the consignor, the consignee or the endorsee, as the case may be, for the entire weight of the commodities loaded beyond the permissible carrying capacity for the entire distance to be travelled by train hauling the wagon from the originating station to the destination point, irrespective of the point of detection of overloading. Indisputably, the writ petitioner on being informed, shifted the goods in the underweight wagons and thereafter only the train could depart. It is for this reason of overloading in the wagons at the instance of the writ petitioner and detention of the train, the Station Manager (Goods) imposed a penalty, as provided under Section 73 of the Railways Act. Relied – Division Bench judgment of this Court in S. Goenka Lime & Chemicals Limited vs. Union of India and Another, AIR 2016 MP 70.
Significant Paras: 16 to 23
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Reserved/Heard through VC on: 10.06.2021
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Advocates:
H.Y. Mehta,

O R D E R

(Passed on this 24th day of June, 2021)

Per: Mohammad Rafiq, Chief Justice:

This writ appeal under Section 2 of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 has been filed by the appellants (hereinafter referred to as “the appellants-Railways”) assailing the order dated 06.02.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No.1256/2018 (M/s S.R. Ferro Alloys vs. Union of India and others) whereby the writ petition filed by the present respondent (hereinafter referred to as “the writ petitioner”) has been allowed.

[3]

2. The respondent-writ petitioner in the aforesaid writ petition challenged the demand letter dated 15.05.2017 (Annexure P-10) and calculation sheet dated 18.05.2017 (Annexure P-12) whereby demand was made towards punitive charge for alleged overloading of loose Manganese Ore transported through Railway from Meghnagar

(Madhya Pradesh) to Baraduar (Chhattisgarh).

3. According to the case set up by the writ petitioner in the memorandum of writ petition, it was a Partnership Firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. The writ petitioner-Firm was engaged in the business of mining and in that connection it has to transport loose Manganese Ore throughout the country through Railways. The writ petitioner received an order for supply of loose Manganese Ore from M/s Chhattisgarh Steel and Power Limited, Village Amjhar, Champa, District Janjgir (C.G.). The writ petitioner submitted a forwarding note on 10.05.2017, as required under Section 64 of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short “the Railways Act”) to the Station Manager, Meghnagar mentioning therein the weight of loose Manganese Ore i.e. 2800 Metric Ton (MT) along with other necessary details for its transportation from Meghnagar to Baraduar Goods Station. The respondent-writ petitioner was permitted to load the goods in the Railway Rake by the Station Manager. The goods were transported from the mines at Kajli Dungari to the Railway Station Meghnagar from 10.05.2017 to 12.05.2017 for the purposes of loading in the Railway Rake and transportation. According to the writ petitioner, trucks were duly weighed by Tol Kanta installed at the site

[4]

of the mine. The writ petitioner produced on record a chart with the dates, vehicle numbers, mineral, royalty books, slip number along with the quantity of the loose Manganese Ore transported by the vehicles. The Mining Officer, Jhabua permitted the petitioner to transport 2800 MT loose Manganese Ore and issued a certificate verifying the quantity of Manganese Ore i.e. 2800 MT with other details before transportation. The writ petitioner raised an invoice No.037(17-18) dated 12.05.2017 for sale of loose Manganese Ore weighing 2800 MT in favour of Chhattisgarh Steel and Power Ltd. (supra). Loading of 2800 MT goods was done in the wagons at Meghnagar Railway Station as per the rules and the requirement specified in that behalf by the Railways on 12.05.2017. The Station Manager issued a Railway Receipt No.212000253, as required by Section 65 of the Railways Act. According to the writ petitioner, Section 65(2) of the Railways Act contemplates that the Railway Receipt shall be prima facie evidence of the weight and the number of packages stated therein. The respondent-writ petitioner paid freight to the tune of Rs.39,66,177/- to the appellant for transportation of 2835 MT.

4. It was further stated by the respondent-writ petitioner that the goods loaded at Meghnagar Railway Station were got weighed at Katni In-Motion Rail weight. As per the allegation of the Railways, the excess weight of 185.60 MT was found. The communication with regard to excess weight was given to the representative of the writ petitioner with instructions to unload the material from the alleged

[5]

overloaded wagons and shift the same in the underloaded wagons. The writ petitioner arranged two labourers for shifting the goods in the underweight wagons as directed by the Railways. The material was accordingly adjusted and

Click Here to Read the rest of this document