Gauhati High Court
WP(C)/6303/2018 on 8 May, 2025
Page No.# 1/17
GAHC010200662018
undefined
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
WP(C) 6303/2018
M/S. Kalpataru Agro Forest Enterprise
A Partnership Firm, Having its office at Stephen H. No. 4, BBD
Bag, Room No.22, 2nd Floor, Kolkata-1, Rep. by its authorized
Signatory Krishna Gupta, Age- 45 Yrs, S/O- Lt Ram Chandra
Gupta, R/O- J.P. Agarwala Road, Shantipur, Ghy, Dist- Kamrup (M),
Assam, Pin- 781009
..............................Petitioner
-VERSUS-
1. The Union of India.
Rep. by the General Manager,
North Eastern Frontier Railway,
Maligaon, Ghy, Dist- Kamrup (M), Assam
2. The General Manager
North Eastern Frontier Railway
Maligaon
Ghy
Page No.# 2/17
Dist- Kamrup (M)
Assam
3. The Chief Commercial Manager/FM
Maligaon
Ghy
Dist- Kamrup (M)
Assam
.......................Respondents
Advocates for the Petitioner: Mr. D. Mazumder, Advocate.
Advocates for the respondents: Mr. B. Sarma, SC, NF Railway.
Date of hearing : 03.04.2025
Date of Judgment: 08.05.2025
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE
JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV)
Heard Mr. D. Mazumder, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. T.
Chakraborty, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Sarma, learned
Standing Counsel, NF Railway appearing for the respondent nos.1, 2 and 3.
2. By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has put to challenge the
impugned communication dated 26.04.2016 issued by the Chief Commercial
Manager/FM (Court), Maligaon, Guwahati-11, whereby, the claim for calculation
of the excess freight taken from the petitioner taking into consideration the
distance factor and to release the excess freight to the petitioner after
Page No.# 3/17
calculating the same has been rejected and the order dated 16.09.2016 passed
by the Member (Judicial), Railway Claims Tribunal, Guwahati in Execution Nos.
A-22/2015 (Ο.Α.No. 787/1994), A-23/2015 (Ο.Α.No. 788/1994), A-24/2015
(Ο.Α.No. 789/1994), A-25/2015 (Ο.Α.No. 792/1994), A-26/2015 (Ο.Α.No.
793/1994), A-27/2015 (Ο.Α.No. 794/1994), A-28/2015 (Ο.Α.No.795/1994),
whereby, the execution petitions are disposed of as no order is required to be
passed in view of the order dated 26.04.2016 issued by the Chief Commercial
Manager/FM (Court), Maligaon.
3. The briefly put, the case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is a
registered firm dealing with Bamboo Cuts which are supplied to different
factories all over India. In the year 1993-1994, the petitioner supplied bamboo
cuts from New-Bongaigaon to Amlai and the said consignments were sent
through Railway carriage. But after delivery of the products, the petitioner firm
came to know that the Railway authority has charged more freight from the
petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner firm instituted 8 (eight) claim applications
before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Guwahati, claiming refund of the excess
freight charged from the petitioner before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Guwahati
claiming refund of the excess freight charged from the petitioner. The said Claim
Applications were registered and numbered as C.A. Nos.787/1994, 788/1994,
789/1994, 791/1994, 792/1994, 793/1994, 794/1994 and 795/1994. The
Railway authority contested the aforesaid Claim Applications and took a stand
that station to station rate has been charged upon the petitioner and therefore,
they are not entitled for any refund.
4. The aforesaid Claim Applications were disposed of by the Railway Claims
Tribunal, Guwahati, vide common order dated 10.08.2001 and rejected the
claims for refund of the excess freight charged from the petitioner. Being
Page No.# 4/17
aggrieved by the said common order dated 10.08.2001, the petitioner preferred
appeals before this Court being MFAs No.54/2002, 65/2002, 66/2002, 67/2002,
69/2002, 70/2002 and 71/2002.
5. This Court vide common order dated 17.08.2012 disposed of the above
MFAs and directed the Railway administration to work out the freight chargeable
at the relevant point of time for carrying the goods from New Bongaingaon to
Amlai via Andal-Anara-Chakradharpur, in which route the goods were carried
and to pay the petitioner the difference, if any, of the freight charged on the
basis of "station to station rate" and the freight payable for carrying the goods
in the aforesaid route, with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the
claim petitions till the date of payment.
6. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an Execution Applications being
Execution Nos.A-22/2015, A-23/2015, A-24/2015, A-25/2015, A-26/2015, A-
27/2015 and A-28/2015 before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Guwahati for
recovery/realization of the excess payments as claimed and directed by this
Court.
7. In the meantime, the Chief Commercial Manager/FM (Court), Maligaon,
Guwahati i.e. the respondent No.3 vide impugned communication dated
26.04.2016 intimated the petitioner that the respondents have rightly calculated
the freight charges and nothing is refundable to the petitioner.
8. Thereafter, on 16.09.2016, the Execution Nos.A-22/2015, A-23/2015, A-
24/2015, A-25/2015, A-26/2015, A-27/2015 and A-28/2015 vide its common
order, the Member (Judicial), Railway Claims Tribunal, Guwahati has disposed of
the same by holding that in view of order dated 26.04.2016 passed by the Chief
Commercial Manager/FM (Court), Maligaon, Guwahati, no orders are required to
be passed. Hence, this writ petition.
Page No.# 5/17
9. Mr. D. Mazumder, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that
this Hon'ble Court while passing the common order dated 17.08.2012 in MFAs
No. 54/2002, 65/2002, 66/2002, 67/2002, 69/2002, 70/2002 and 71/2002, has
held that there is no dispute that the respondent authority has carried the goods
through a shorter route (1510 Km) whereas charged the petitioner for a longer
route (1769 Km). In fact, this Hon'ble Court has held that the Railway
Administration cannot be allowed to make undue profit by charging the freight
on the basis of a longer route, in the name of station to station rate and then
carrying the goods by a shorter route. Therefore, the findings vide impugned
communication dated 26.04.2016 are contrary to the findings of this Hon'ble
Court and as such the communication dated 26.04.2016 issued by the
respondent No.3 as well as order dated 16.09.2016 passed by the Member
(Judicial), Railway Claims Tribunal, Guwahati are liable to be set aside and
quashed.
10. Mr. D. Mazumder, learned Senior Counsel, submits that this Hon'ble High
Court vide aforesaid order dated 17.08.2012 directed the respondents to work
out the freight charges at the relevant point of time for carrying the goods from
New Bongaigaon to Amlai via Andal-Anara-Chakradharpur, in which route the
goods were carried and to pay the difference. He submits that the goods
booked by the petitioner were carried through a distance of 1510 KM, whereas,
the petitioner was charged for a distance of 1769 KM and therefore, the
petitioner is entitled for the difference of freight charged from it.
11. Mr. D. Mazumder, learned Senior Counsel, submits that the calculation of
the respondent No.3 is not correct in view of the fact that the Railway authority
is not bound to carry the goods through the shorter route in absence of any
specific direction from the consignor as it is the admitted position that there was
Page No.# 6/17
no specific direction to the respondent authority for carrying the goods through
a longer route. In fact, the Railway authority carried the goods through a
distance of 1510 KM whereas charged the petitioner for 1769 KM, which is out
and out illegal, malafide and arbitrary. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for
the difference of freight taken from it by the Railway authority. But the
respondent authority has rejected such claim of the petitioner. Therefore, this
Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondent authority to re-calculate
the freight charges taking into account the distance.
12. Mr. D. Mazumder, learned Senior Counsel, submits that this Hon'ble Court
has clearly stated in its order dated 17.08.2012 that the plea taken by the
Railway Administration that since it has the power under Section 32(a) to
charge freight on 'station to station rate' and as such charged, the appellants
would not be entitled to refund of the freight even if the goods are carried by a
shorter route, cannot be accepted in the instant cases, as, 'station to station
rate' cannot be more than the freight to be charged for carrying the goods by
the shortest route, thereby compelling the senders to book the consignment at
a much higher rate by the Railway, more so when the route in which the goods
were to be carried through has specifically been mentioned in the RR i.e. by the
longer route, the goods were in fact carried by a shorter route. It would have
been different, had the Railway carried the goods in the route mentioned in the
RR. Therefore, the finding shown in the impugned communication dated
26.04.2016 is absolutely not correct.
13. Mr. D. Mazumder, learned Senior counsel, submits that the respondents
charged freight for a distance of 1769 KM via MLDT/DKAE which was the
longest route whereas cheaper route was available via Andal-Anara-
Chakradharpur, distance of which comes to 1510 KM inasmuch as the petitioner
Page No.# 7/17
had never instructed the respondents to carry the consignment through a longer
route. Therefore, under Rule 125(1)(b) of the Goods Tariff, the consignment
ought to have been carried through a shorter route.
14. Mr. D. Mazumder, learned Senior Counsel, submits that the respondent
no.3 by the impugned communication letter dated 26.04.2016 has tried to sit
over the order dated 17.08.2012 passed by this Hon'ble Court inasmuch as the
respondent No.3 has ignored the distance factor while issuing the
communication dated 26.04.2016 and the learned Member (Judicial), Railway
Claims Tribunal, Guwahati has also did not go through the same. Therefore, the
impugned communication dated 26.04.2016 issued by the respondent No.3 as
well as order dated 16.09.2016 passed by the Member (Judicial), Railway Claims
Tribunal, Guwahati are liable to be set aside and quashed.
15. He submits that both the respondent No.3 as well as the Member
(Judicial), Railway Claims Tribunal, Guwahati ought to have considered the
cases taking into the consideration of the findings of this Hon'ble Court vide
order dated 17.08.2012. He submits that since both the respondent no.3 and
the Member (Judicial), Railway Claims Tribunal, Guwahati have ignored the
findings of this Hon'ble Court, the communication dated 26.04.2016 issued by
the respondent No.3 as well as order dated 16.09.2016 passed by the Member
(Judicial), Railway Claims Tribunal, Guwahati are liable to be set aside and
quashed and the respondent no.3 may be directed to calculate the excess
freight from the petitioner taking into consideration the distance factor and to
release the excess freight to the petitioner.
16. Mr. B. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, NF Railway appearing for the
respondent nos.1, 2 and 3, while raising the preliminary objection, submits that
the present writ petition is not maintainable as the Railway Claims Tribunal Act,
Page No.# 8/17
1987 provides for a remedy of an appeal against orders passed by it under
Section 23 of the said Act. Therefore, the same is liable to be dismissed on its
count alone.
17. On merits, Mr. B. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, NF Railway, submits
that pursuant to the order dated 17.08.2012 by this Hon'ble Court in above
MFAs, whereby, the respondent Railway has been directed to work out the
freight chargeable at the relevant point of time from New Bongaigaon to Amlai
via Andal, Anara and Chakradharpur. Accordingly, the respondent Railway
complied with the direction passed by this Hon'ble Court and communicated the
decision taken by the Railway administration vide Letter dated 26.04.2016 and
on the basis of the above communication the Hon'ble Railway Claims Tribunal,
Guwahati vide its order dated 16.09.2016 disposed of the execution petitions
filed by the petitioner. While referring to the communication dated 26.04.2016,
he submits that the respondent Railway has fairly and rightly intimated the
petitioner that the Railway had examined the freight charges and found that
nothing is refundable by providing the detailed calculation with illustration to
show that Railway has rightly calculated the freight charges.
19. Mr. B. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, submits that the consignment
had been booked under "Station to Station Rate" which is specially designed to
help the regular Railway customers by charging reduced freight charges. It is
true that the respondent Railway calculated the longer route that is 1796 Km
instead of 1510 km as contented by the petitioner. But the petitioner had
concealed the material fact that his consignment has been booked at rate of Rs
67.40/- per quintal instead of Rs 79.56/-. The Railway provided reduced freight
charges under STS scheme thereby charged only Rs 67.40/- per quintal instead
of normal rate of freight through Andal-Anara-Chakradharpur. It is submitted
Page No.# 9/17
that under Station to Station Rate, the concept of shortest route, as enumerated
under Rule 125(1) (b) of Goods Tariff is not applicable.
20. Mr. B. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, submits that instead of charging
Rs 79.56/- per quintal which was normal freight rate, the Railway charged only
Rs 67.40 per quintal that means petitioner was already benefitted from the
freight charge under Station to Station Rate. He submits that the petitioner is
trying to extract undue benefits by arguing that the consignment should have
routed through the shortest route. The petitioner is not entitled to avail double
benefits by resorting to the plea that their consignment was not booked through
shortest route. The station to station rate is a specially designed reduced rate
from one station to another station. In the present case the consignment of
bamboo cuts has been booked from New Bongaigaon to Amlai and the freight
rate is fixed at Rs 67.40/- per quintal which is fixed rate in between two pairs of
stations. He submits that under STS scheme the distance is immaterial as the
rate between the two pairs of stations is already fixed in the scheme.
21. Mr. B. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, submits that the contention of
the petitioner that their consignment should have been routed through shortest
route have no relevancy. The concept of sending consignment in the shortest
route has no applicability under STS rate. It is an admitted fact that
consignment of the petitioner has been booked under STS rate and the
petitioner ought to have known that under STS scheme distance and route has
no relevancy. According to STS, the rate per quintal from New Bongaigaon to
Amlai is Rs 67.40/- and hence the contention that there were no specific
direction to the respondent Railway for carrying the goods by longer route is
irrelevant.
22. Mr. B. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, submits that apart from lack of
Page No.# 10/17
grounds on merit, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed being not
maintainable as, if at all, the petitioner has any grievance against the order
passed by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal on the execution petitions, the
petitioner ought to have approach this Hon'ble Court by appropriate
applications/petitions as provided under the law and as such same may be
dismissed.
23. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the
parties and also perused the records including the judgment and order passed
by this Court in MFA Nos.54/2002, 65/2002, 66/2002, 67/2002, 69/2002,
70/2002 and 71/2002 vide order dated 17.08.2012.
24. The writ petitioner has filed the claim applications before the learned
Tribunal claiming refund of the freight contending that the bamboo cuts were
booked by different Railway receipts on different dates for transportation by the
Railway from New Bongaigaon to Amlai, for which though the Railway has
charged the freight taking distance between the two stations as 1769 kms via
MLDT/DKAE, which is a longer route, the goods were transported from New
Bongaigaon to Amlai through a shorter route via Andal-Anara-Chakradharpur
covering the distance of 1510 kms and as such is entitled to refund of the
excess freight charged by the Railway for transportation of the aforesaid goods.
25. On contest by the respondent Railway, the learned Railway Tribunal vide
common judgment dated 10.08.2001 has rejected the claim for refund of the
excess freight charged from the petitioner by the respondent Railway for
carriage of the above goods and the same was challenged before this Court
being MFAs Nos.54/2002, 65/2002, 66/2002, 67/2002, 69/2002, 70/2002 and
71/2002.
26. This Court after consideration of the submissions of the learned counsel
Page No.# 11/17
for the parties and also relevant provisions of Acts and Rules has held, which
are reproduced herein under:-
"13. It thus appears from the aforesaid provisions of the Act and the Rules
framed that while the power to fix the routes for carriage of the passengers and
goods vest on the Central Government under sub-section (1) of Section 30 of
the 1989 Act, the Railway Administration has been given the power to charge
the rate for carriage of any commodity by quoting a 'station to station rate',
under Clause (a) of Section 32 of the said Act. The Central Government has
also the power to issue the order, under Section 71(b) of the Act, to the Railway
Administration to carry any goods or class of goods by any route or routes and
at a rate to be fixed by the Central Government. As noticed above, Rule 125(1)
(b) requires the Railway Administration to carry the goods from one station to
another by the shortest route at the charges by the cheapest route provided
there is no specific instructing in writing contrary thereto by the sender or his
authorized agent on the forwarding note. The obligation on the part of the
Railway Administration to carry the goods by shortest route at the charges by
the cheapest route is subject to the order that may be passed by the Central
Government under Section 71(1)(b) of the 1989 Act. When such an order is
passed under the said provision, the freight is chargeable for carrying the goods
by the specified route or any of the specified alternative routes over which the
goods are actually carried, even if it is not the cheapest route.
14. In the instant case, the goods were carried from New Bongaigaon to Amlai
via Andal-Anara-Chakradharpur, though in the RR it has been mentioned that
the goods would be carried from New Bongaigaon to Amlai via MLDT/DKAE, the
distance of which is approximately 1769 km. There is also an endorsement in
the said RR that the concessional rate pursuant to the notification dated
02.09.1993 is applied, meaning thereby that the concessional 'station to station
rate' as notified by the N.F. Railway vide notification dated 02.09.1993 has been
applied. There is no written instruction from the sender or his authorized
representative to carry the goods from New Bongaigaon to Amlai via
Page No.# 12/17
MLDT/DKAE, which is a longer route in comparison to the distance between the
New Bongaigaon to Amlai via Andal-Anara-Chakradharpur, through which route
the goods were in fact carried. The note relating to the charge of the freight on
concessional 'station to station rate' was put by the Railway Administration in
the RR and not by the sender. In the absence of any such endorsement in
writing in the forwarding note for carrying the goods by other than the shortest
route or the cheapest route, the Railway Administration is obliged to carry the
goods by the shortest route at the charges by the cheapest route as required
under Rule 125(1)(b) of the 1992 Rules. In the instant case, it is not in dispute
that though in the RR it has been shown that the goods would be carried from
New Bongaigaon to Amlai via MLDT/DKAE, those were carried to the destination
station via Andal-Anara-Chakradharpur. The freight, however, was charged on
the basis of the 'station to station rate' pursuant to the notification dated
02.09.1993. Nothing could be placed before the Tribunal or this Court by the
Railway administration to demonstrate that the Central Government has issued
any special or general order as required under Section 71(1)(b) of the 1989 Act
specifying that the goods can be carried and charged by a route specified
therein, so as to deprive the sender from the benefit of the provisions contained
in Rule 125(1)(b) of the 1992 Rules.
15. The plea taken by the Railway Administration that since it has the power
under Section 32(a) to charge freight on 'station to station rate' and as such
charged, the appellants would not be entitled to refund of the freight even if
the goods are carried by a shorter route, cannot be accepted in the instant
cases, as, such 'station to station rate' cannot be more than the freight to be
charged for carrying the goods by the shortest route, thereby compelling the
senders to book the consignment at a much higher rate by the Railway, more so
when the route in which the goods were to be carried though has specifically
been mentioned in the RR i.e. by the longer route, the goods were in fact
carried by a shorter route. It would have been different, had the Railway carried
the goods in the route mentioned in the RR. The Railway Administration cannot
be allowed to make undue profit by charging the freight on the basis of a
Page No.# 13/17
longer route, in the name of 'station to station rate' and then carrying the goods
by a shorter route.
16. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the Railway administration is directed to
work out the freight chargeable at the relevant point of time for carrying the
goods from New Bongaigaon to Amlai via Andal-Anara-Chakradharpur, in which
route the goods were carried, and to pay the appellant the difference, if any, of
the freight charged on the basis of 'station to station rate' and the freight
payable for carrying the goods in the aforesaid route, with interest @6% per
annum from the date of filing the claim petitions till the date of payment."
27. On the consideration of the aforesaid judgment and order of this Court
dated 17.08.2012, it is seen that this court has clearly negated the stand of the
respondents with reasons and held that the petitioner is entitled to the
difference of freight chargeable at the relevant point of time for carrying the
goods. Accordingly, directed the Railway administration to work out the freight
chargeable at the relevant point of time for carrying the goods from New
Bongaigaon to Amlai via Andal-Anara-Chakradharpur, in which route the goods
were carried, and to pay the appellant the difference, if any, of the freight
charged on the basis of 'station to station rate' and the freight payable for
carrying the goods in the aforesaid route, with interest @6% per annum from
the date of filing the claim petitions till the date of payment.
28. Pursuant thereto, the respondent Railway passed the impugned
communication dated 26.04.2016 rejecting the claim of the petitioner in
purported compliance of the order of this Court, which is reproduced herein
below:-
NORTHEAST FRONTIER RAILWAY.
Office of the Chief Comml Manager/M(Court)
Maligaon, Guwahati-11
Dated: 26.04.2016.
Page No.# 14/17
No. 0/78/L/311/GHY/6/96 RCT.
To
M/s Kalpataru Agro Forest Enterprises (P) Ltd.
Suite-22, Stephen House,
2Floor, 4E, B:B.D Bagh,
Kolkata-700001.
Sub:-MFA-54/2002, 2, MFA-65/2002, 3.MFA-66/2002, 4.MPA-67/2002, 5. MFA-
69/2002, 6.MFA-70/2002, 7.MPA-71/2002.
Ref:-Hon'ble High Court/GHY's order Dt: 17.08.12.
In the subject cases the Hon'ble High Court/ Guwahati vide its order dated: 17.08.2012, Para-16
has directed as follows:-
"In view of the aforesaid discussion, the Railway administration is directed to work out the
freight chargeable at the relevant point of time for carrying the goods from New Bongaigaon to Amlai
via Andal-Anara-Chakradharpur, in which route the goods were carried, and to pay the appellant the
difference if any. of the freight charged on the basis of 'station to station rate' and the freight payable for
carrying the goods in the aforesaid route, with interest @6% per annum from the date of filing the
claim petitions till the date of payment".
The matter was examined by the Respondent Railway and it has come to the conclusion that the
freight chargable via Andal, Anara, Chakradarpur under station to station rate has been rightly
calculated and nothing is refundable to the claimant/applicant in the subject cases.
Contd.2
An Illustration in this regard is furnished as follows:-
Illustration
Had the consignment booked under Normal Rate
Example Invoice No. 07/RR No.405875
Chargeable weight = 1320 Qtl. 79.56
Rate per Qtl
Routed via-Andal-Anara-Chakradharpur
Therefore freight should be 1320 x 79.50-Rs.98718/-
Under Station to Station Rate:
Example Invoice No.7/RR No.405875
Page No.# 15/17
Chargeable weight = 1320 qtl.
Rate per Qtl=67.40 per qtl.
Freight should be = 1320 x 67.40 -Rs.88968/-
In this case, the freight was calculated according to the STS rate, Rs.67.40 per qtl, which is a
special reduced rate, and this rate has been worked out as per the shortest route i.e. Andal, Anara,
Chakradharpur route.
in view of the above, the claim in the subject cases are rejected and treated as disposed of.
for Chief Commercial Manager/FM.
29. A bare perusal of the aforesaid impugned communication indicates that
the matter was examined by the respondent Railway and has come to a
conclusion that the freight chargeable via Andal-Anara-Chakradharpur under
station to station rate has been rightly calculated and nothing is refundable to
the petitioner by giving an illustration to that effect and it appears that
respondent Railway has stuck to their stand as taken in the MFAs (Supra), the
stand which this Court has negated. The illustration appears to be a technical in
calculating the freight charge. However, on bare perusal, it does not indicate
that the Railway authorities has worked out freight charges at the relevant point
of time for carrying the goods from New Bongaigaon to Amlai via Andal-Anara-
Chakradharpur in which route the goods were carried. Thus, this Court is of the
considered view that it would be appropriate to remand back the matter to the
respondent Railway authorities to reconsider and worked out the freight
chargeable as directed by this Court vide order dated 17.08.2012 in MFAs
Nos.54/2002, 65/2002, 66/2002, 67/2002, 69/2002, 70/2002 and 71/2002
without resorting to any other technicalities as this Court after consideration of
the relevant provisions of the rules and the act has come to the conclusion that
"station to station rate" cannot be more than the freight to be charged for
Page No.# 16/17
carrying the goods by the shortest route, thereby compelling the senders to
book the consignment at a much higher rate by the Railway, more so when the
route in which the goods were to be carried though has specifically been
mentioned in the RR i.e. by the longer route, the goods were in fact carried by a
shorter route. It would have been different, had the Railway carried the goods
in the route mentioned in the RR. Therefore, the Railway Administration cannot
be allowed to make undue profit by charging the freight on the basis of a longer
route, in the name of "station to station rate" and then carrying the goods by a
shorter route.
30. Regard being had to the maintainability of the present writ petition raised
by the learned Standing Counsel on the ground that in view of the availability of
remedy of appeal under Section 23 of Railway Claims Tribunal Act, I am of the
view that no doubt, in a normal circumstances if the order is passed by the
Railway authorities, the remedy would be of an appeal under the provisions of
the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, the impugned communication being
made by the respondent Railways pursuant to the order of this Court in MFAs
Nos.54/2002, 65/2002, 66/2002, 67/2002, 69/2002, 70/2002 and 71/2002
dated 17.08.2012, the writ petition would be maintainable as the basic
challenge being the said impugned communication dated 26.04.2016. Moreso,
no challenge has been made against the judgment and order dated 17.08.2012
of this court by the respondents which has attained finality.
31. For the foregoing reasons, I am of the considered view that the
respondent authority has failed to take into consideration of the order dated
17.08.2012 passed by this Court in MFAs Nos.54/2002, 65/2002, 66/2002,
67/2002, 69/2002, 70/2002 and 71/2002 and has come to a erroneous finding
by denying the claim of the petitioner. Thus, the impugned communication
Page No.# 17/17
dated 26.04.2016 issued by Chief Commercial manager and order dated
16.09.2016 passed in Execution petitions Nos.
A-22/2015 (Ο.Α.No. 787/1994), A-23/2015 (Ο.Α.No. 788/1994), A-24/2015
(Ο.Α.No. 789/1994), A-25/2015 (Ο.Α.No. 792/1994), A-26/2015 (Ο.Α.No.
793/1994), A-27/2015 (Ο.Α.No. 794/1994), A-28/2015 (Ο.Α.No.795/1994) by
the Member (Judicial) Railway Claims Tribunal, Guwahati, are not sustainable
and therefore, are hereby set aside and quashed.
32. Consequently, the Railway authorities are directed to reconsider and
worked out the freight chargeable at the relevant point of time for carrying the
bamboo cuts from New Bongaigaon to Amlai via Andal-Anara-Chakradharpur in
which route the goods were carried and to pay the appellant the differences of
the freight charge on the basis of station to station rate and the freight payable
for carrying the goods in the aforesaid route with interest @6% per annum from
the date of filing the claim petitions till the date of payment, as directed by this
Court in the aforesaid MFAs.
33. With the above observations and directions, the present writ petition
stands allowed and disposed of.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
