Jharkhand High Court
M/S Emars Mining & Construction ... vs The Union Of India Through The ... on 1 February, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No. 2804 of 2011
M/s EMARS Mining & Construction Pvt. Limited, a company under
the provisions of Companies Act, 1956 having its Registered Office at
4, Lyon's Ranchi 6th Floor, Kolkata - 1 (West Bengal) through one of
its Directors Sri Premjit Rai, son of Sri Avijit Rai, resident of Flat
No.2C & 2D, Green Acres, 2, Nazar Ali Lane, P.O. Park Circus &
P.S. - Kareya, Town & District - Kolkata (West Bengal)
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The Union of India through the Ministry of Railway, Railway
Bhavan, Rafi Ahmad Kidwai Marg, New Delhi
2. The Chairman, Railway Board, Railway Bhavan, Rafi Ahmad
Kidwai Marg, New Delhi
3. The General Manager, South Eastern Railway having its
Divisional office at Chakradharpur, District Singhbhum (West)
4. The Chief Goods Supervisor, South Eastern Railway, Jaroli
Keonjhar, Orissa
5. The Station Manager, South Eastern Railway, Jaroli, Keonjhar,
Orissa
6. Assistant Chief Manager, South Eastern Railway
7. Sr. Divisional Chief Manager, South Eastern Railway
8. Divisional Railway Manager, South Eastern Railway
Respondents no.6 to 8 having its Divisional office at
Chakradharpur, District Singbhum West
... ... Respondents
---
CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Krishna Kumar, Advocate
: Mr. Kumar Amit, Advocate
For the Resp. UOI : Mr. Anil Kumar, ASGI
: Mr. Shiv Kumar Sharma, CGC
---
06/01.02.2023 Learned counsel for the parties are present.
2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:
"(A) For issuance of an appropriate writ or a writ in the nature of
Certiorari for quashing the demand raised vide stacking charges bill against the
petitioner for the period 01.03.2010 to 31.08.2010 amounting to Rs. 73,72,800/-
served upon the petitioner in the month of March, 2011 although dated
09.09.2010 for the reasons that the material (Iron Ore Fines) which could not be
removed from the railway siding at Jaroli was due to a general order passed U/s.
144 of Code of Criminal Procedure by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Champua,
Orissa whereby and whereunder the materials which were stocked and kept at the
railway siding at Jaroli could not be removed and on such account the aforesaid
stacking charges bill has been raised, although no allegation of any illegal
transaction has been made against the petitioner, but only because of the general
order having been passed the petitioner was prevented from lifting the materials
and now a restriction has been imposed upon the petitioner from removing the
materials, until and unless the entire payment is made.
(B)For issuance of an appropriate writ or a writ in the nature of Prohibition for
prohibiting the Respondent Railway Board from realizing the aforesaid amount
on account of stacking charges from the petitioner which was not attributable to
the default of the petitioner.
(C) For issuance of an appropriate writ or a writ in the nature of Mandamus
commanding upon the respondents not to levy penalty by way of stacking charges/
wharfage for the period the petitioner was unable to lift the material inasmuch as
due to raising of demand 15 times more than the value of the goods stored, the
petitioner was prevented from lifting of material.
(D) For issuance of an appropriate writ or a writ in the nature of Mandamus
commanding upon the respondents to allow to the petitioner to transport its
consignment by railways without insisting upon the payment of amount in dispute
and further to provide the petitioner with appropriate number of wagons and
rakes, so that the indent of the petitioner can be transported at the earliest,
inasmuch as because of non-availability of wagons and rakes, the materials lying
at the railway siding at Jaroli could not be removed and for which also, the
petitioner is being made to suffer day to day losses apart from levy of delayed
lifting charges."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that they have no
instruction in the present case and accordingly they do not want to
press the same.
4. Learned Senior counsel for the respondent-UOI submits that the
case is covered against the petitioner by virtue of various judgments
passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court.
5. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the
petitioner, this writ petition is dismissed as not pressed.
6. Pending interlocutory application, if any, stands closed.
7. Interim order, if any, is vacated.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Saurav/
