Union Of India vs M/S Rai Bahadur Seth Shreeram ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 6199 Kant

                             1


      IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

                         PRESENT

     THE HON'BLE MR. RITU RAJ AWASTHI, CHIEF JUSTICE

                           AND

    THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

         WRIT APPEAL NO.955 OF 2021 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN:

1. UNION OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
RAIL BHAVAN, NEW DELHI - 110 001

2. SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAYS
REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER
RAIL SOUDHA, GADAG ROAD
KESHWAPUR, HUBLI - 580 020

3. THE CHIEF TRAFFIC PLANNING MANAGER
SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY
RAIL SOUDHA, GADAG ROAD
HUBLI - 580 020

4. THE RAILWAY BOARD
REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
RAIL BHAVAN, NEW DELHI - 110 001
                                             ...APPELLANTS

(BY SRI ABHINAY Y.T., ADVOCATE)
                                2


AND:

1. M/S RAI BAHADUR SETH SHREERAM
NARASINGH DAS PRIVATE LIMITED
REGACY BLISS, 1ST FLOOR
B1, NO.10, CORNWELL ROAD
LANGFORD GARDEN, RICHMOND TOWN
BENGALURU - 560 025
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
AJAY SARAF
S/O LATE GOVINDADAS SARAF
AGED 50 YEARS

2. AJAY SARAF
S/O LATE SIR GOVINDADAS SARAF
AGED 50 YEARS,
REGACY BLISS, 1ST FLOOR
B1, NO.10, CORNWELL ROAD
LANGFORD GARDEN, RICHMOND TOWN
BENGALURU - 560 025

                                                  ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT. SWAMINI.G.MOHANAMBAL, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1)

       THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH
COURT    ACT   PRAYING   TO   SET   ASIDE   THE    ORDER   DATED
12/03/2021 PASSED IN WRIT PETITION NO.47022/2017 PASSED
BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HONBLE COURT AND
CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION.


       THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS

DAY,    SACHIN   SHANKAR      MAGADUM       J.,   DELIVERED   THE

FOLLOWING:
                                 3


                           JUDGMENT

The captioned writ appeal is filed assailing the order

dated 12.03.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in

W.P.No.47022/2017 questioning the direction of the learned

Single Judge to refund 99% of registration fees with 6%

interest from the date of filing of the writ petition till the date

of refund.

2. Learned counsel for the Union of India reiterating

the grounds urged in the appeal memo would submit to this

Court that the respondents have themselves got allotted

additional land from the State Government for establishing

Private Siding. He would submit to this Court that the

respondents instead of offering this land have approached this

Hon'ble Court seeking refund of non-refundable security

deposit by suppressing this fact and therefore, on this ground,

by placing reliance on the registered document would submit

to this Court that the order under challenge warrants

interference at the hands of this Court.

3. We have examined the order under challenge and

also the grounds urged in the application filed seeking

production of additional documents.

4. On perusal of the order under challenge and the

records, we would find that the land which was proposed by

the respondents for laying of the Railway Siding was acquired

for widening of National Highway 63 and therefore, the

respondents vide letter dated 12.11.2013 made a

representation to appellant No.3 and submitted a revised plan.

However, the appellant No.3 vide letter dated 30.12.2013

intimated the respondents that the Railway Department is

discouraging in establishing the overhead conveyor for the

purpose of inward and outward traffic from the plant site to

the proposed siding and therefore, rejected the revised plan.

In the interregnum, the appellant/Union of India issued a

Freight Marketing Circular No.24 of 2013 dated 17.11.2014

thereby withdrawing the earlier Circular No.12 of 2008

regarding construction of private siding and therefore, the

respondents submitted a representation seeking for refund of

registration fee of Rs.5 Crores remitted by the respondents for

construction of private siding on the ground that the

appellant/Union of India has withdrawn the Freight Marketing

Circular No.12 of 2008 regarding construction of private

siding.

5. If the appellant/Union of India has withdrawn the

Freight Marketing Circular No.12 of 2008 and if the revised

plan submitted by the respondents is also not accepted by the

authorities in terms of clause 3.2 of the Circular which

contemplates and provides for refund of 99% of registration

fees, the appellants are bound to refund the amount in terms

of clause 3.2 of the Circular as the project had not yet

commenced.

6. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity or illegality

in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The grounds

urged in the writ appeal would not displace the conclusions

and reasons assigned by the learned Single Judge.

7. The writ appeal is devoid of merits and accordingly

stands dismissed.

The pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand

disposed of.

Sd/-

CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/-

JUDGE

CA