Kakatiya Overseas, Hyderabad vs Union of India and Others

B. Seshasayana Reddy, J.—Challenge in this writ petition is the action of the respondents in levying punitive charges of Rs. 70,52,584/- and rake detention charges of Rs. 7,25,700/- in respect of the consignment of quartz stone booked by the petitioner at Donakonda Railway Station to be delivered at Sukhinda Railway Station, Zajpur District, Orissa State. When the writ petition came up for consideration, it is contended by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents that the writ petitioner has a remedy by way of complaint to the Railway Rates Tribunal at Chennai u/s 36 of the Railways Act, 1989, (for short, ''the Act''). Learned Standing Counsel placed reliance on the judgments of Madras High Court in Gimpex Ltd. v. The General Manager, SCR, Secunderabad, A.P. and others, WP Nos. 41110 and 41138 of 2005, dated 2.1.2006; Bhagaban Dey Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, Rajasthan High Court in Rajasthan State Mines and Minerals Ltd. Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, and the judgment of the Supreme Court in Jagjit Cotton Textile Mills Vs. Chief Commercial Superintendent N.R. and Others, Relevant portion of the judgment of the Supreme Court needs to be noted and it is thus:

Further, the question of reasonableness of the quantum of any such extra rate cannot be challenged before us and the appropriate forum therefore is the Railway Rates Tribunal. Rule 161A can therefore, be resorted to for collecting these penal charge from the consignee also. After all, the consignee had received delivery of the overloaded goods and used the same for their business, commercial or industrial purposes. For the above reasons, a statutory provision like Section 73 or Rule 161A which permits levy on such a consignee cannot in our view, be said to be arbitrary or unreasonable in the context of Article 14.

In that view of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner to approach the Railway Rates Tribunal, Chennai, by way of complaint as provided u/s 36 of the Act within 8 (eight) weeks. The interim order, dated 11.3.2010, passed in WPMP No. 7244 of 2010, shall remain in force for a period of 8 (weeks). No costs.