Gauhati High Court
M/S Annada Fertilizer And Agro ... vs Union Of India And Anr on 10 November, 2021
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010093182019
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : MFA/154/2019
M/S ANNADA FERTILIZER AND AGRO CHEMICALS
CENTRAL ROAD, NEAR SHIVBARI, AGARTALA, TRIPURA.
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR
REP. BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTH EASTERN RAILWAY, KOLKATA.
2:UNION OF INDIA
REP. BY THE GENERAL MANAGER
N.F. RAILWAY
MALIGAON
GUWAHATI- 781011
ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. K P MAHESWARI
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, NF RLY
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA
ORDER
10.11.2021
Heard Ms. N. Sarma, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Mr. B. Sharma,
learned Standing Counsel, N.F. Railway appearing for the respondents.
This is an appeal under Section 23 of The Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 challenging the
order and judgment dated 24.01.2019 passed in Original Application No. III-123/2012 passed by the
Railway Claims Tribunal, Guwahati.
Page No.# 2/3
The facts necessary disposal of this appeal lies within a short campus. The appellant alleges that
the respondents erroneously collected "terminal service" (OTC Rs.1,05,840.00 + DTC Rs.1,05,840.00)
at both booking as well as at destination station. Therefore, the appellant approached the Tribunal by
filing an application for return of the excess money.
While deciding the claim of the appellant, the Tribunal framed four issues. They are:-
1. Whether there was a proper notice under Section 106 of the Railways Act?
2. Whether the applicant holds valid title?
3. Whether the applicant is entitled to refund of freight overcharged as claim in his claim application
and to what extent?
4. Relief and costs?
At the time of passing the judgment, the Issue No. 3 was divided into three parts, namely, (i) (ii)
and (iii). They read as under:
3(i) Claim on account of Terminal Charges =Rs.2,11,680/-.
(OTC Rs.1,05,840/- + DTC Rs.1,05,840/-)
3(ii) Claim on account of wrong collection of =Rs.1,63,256/-.
Surcharge in Invoice No. 2.
3(iii) Claim on account of wrong calculation of freight =RS.7,424/-.
In Invoice No. 1.
While deciding the Issue No. 3 (i), the Tribunal held that the appellant is not entitled to the
refund of terminal charges amounting to Rs.2,11,680/-.
On the other hand, while deciding the Issue No. 3 (ii), the Tribunal agreed that there was a wrong
collection of surcharge in Invoice No. 2 and held that the appellant is entitled to refund of surcharge
amounting to Rs.1,63,256.00.
At the time of deciding the Issue No. 3(iii), the Tribunal held that the appellant is entitled to a
refund of Rs.7,424.00.
Ms. Sarma submits that the learned Tribunal failed to take into consideration the law laid down
in Union of India v. M/s Meghalaya Cement Limited in MFA No. 100/2011 wherein it is held that the
terminal charges will be imposed only in the 50 goods sheds as notified in the Railway Board's letter
dated 05.06.2007 even if the desired facilities are not maintained.
Ms. Sarma further submits that the Issue No. 3(i) has been erroneously decided. Ms. Sarma has
clarified that the decision arrived at the Issue No. 3(iii) is against the object of the Railways Act,1989
and the rules framed thereunder.
Mr. Sharma on the other hand has supported the judgment of the Tribunal.
I have carefully gone through the impugned judgment.
As per Section 18 of The Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, the Tribunal is not bound by the
procedure laid down by the Code of Civil Procedure. But the law prescribes that the Tribunal shall be
guided by the principles of natural justice.
Judgments passed by different authorities are the culmination of a long drawn process. After that,
the people have the excess to a judgment. People should know what is the case decided by the authority
Page No.# 3/3
and how the case was decided.
On a plain reading of the impugned judgment it is absolutely impossible to know the facts under
which the judgment was passed. An appellate Court has a right to know the circumstances or facts
under which a judicial or quashi judicial authority subordinate to it passes a judgment.
Since the facts under which the impugned judgment was passed are not available in the judgment
itself, it is impossible to examine the merit of the appeal. This Court is of the opinion that such a
judgment is not sustainable in law.
Under the aforesaid premised reasons, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment dated
24.01.2019 passed in Original Application No. III-123/2012 is set aside. The case is remanded to the
Tribunal for passing a fresh judgment, after hearing both sides afresh.
With the aforesaid observations, the appeal stands disposed of.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
