LAWS(SC)-1994-3-59

UNION OF INDIA Vs. GANGESHWAR LIMITED

Decided On March 30, 1994
UNION OF INDIA Appellant
V/S
Gangeshwar Limited Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 31/3/1983 of the railway Rates tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the tribunal') on a complaint made by the respondents that the maintenance charges, that are being levied for the private railway siding provided by the railways for the sugar mill of Respondent 1 at Deoband in Saharanpur District, are unreasonable. The saidprivate siding was provided in 1933 and the maintenance charges for the same were regulated initially by agreement dated 20/11/1933 and subsequently they a were being regulated by the agreement dated 24/8/1981. Clause l0 (h) of the said agreement provides that maintenance charges will be payable at 4 1/2 per cent per annum on the total outlay incurred by the railway administration on its own behalf for the construction of the siding outside the firm's premises or on the value of the assets so provided to cover its maintenance charges from the date on which the siding is opened for traffic. On the basis of revaluation of the assets the maintenance charges that were being levied at the relevant time were rs 37,574.40p for the entire length of the siding which is 1958 metres. By its impugned order the tribunal has held that the said maintenance charges were unreasonable and has fixed the charges at the figure of Rs. 19,434. 00 from the date of the complaint to 31/3/1983 and has also directed that the said charges may be increased by 10% from year to year till the base figure of the maintenance charges notified in the Board's letter dated 21/23/4/1982 are further revised by the Railway Board.

(2.) Shri V. Venugopal Reddy, the learned Senior Counsel representing the appellants, has raised two contentions before us. In the first place he has submitted that since the maintenance charges are being levied on the basis of the agreement voluntarily entered by the respondents it was not competent for the tribunal to go into the matter of reasonableness of the said charges. The other contention that has been urged by the learned counsel is that the finding recorded by the tribunal that the charges that are levied are unreasonable is not sustainable.

(3.) We shall first deal with the second contention that has been urged by the learned counsel. In this context it may be mentioned that the tribunal has referred to the guidelines prescribed by the Railway Board in its letter dated 21/23/4/1982 whereby charges for maintenance for private sidings, as on 1/10/1981, have been fixed at Rs. 18,045.50p per km per annum. Applying the said figure the tribunal has worked out the average cost of maintenance on the main line on the basis of the 100/80 formula and has arrived at a figure of rs 22,577 per km as the maintenance charges for the main line. Thereafter the tribunal has reduced the said amount on the ground that the traffic on the siding is only of the order of two to three wagons per day while in the main line very large number of trains are run on a comparatively higher speed and that 40% of the average charge of maintenance on the main line would be a reasonable cost of maintenance for the private siding. We find it difficult to appreciate this line of reasoning of the tribunal. If the tribunal was inclined to adopt the guidelines as laid down in the letter of the Railway Board dated 21/23/4/1982 then it should have accepted the figure of Rs. 18,045.50p per km per annum which has been prescribed as the maintenance charges for private sidings per year and should have fixed the maintenance charges for the entire length of private siding of 1958 metres on that basis. That figure would not be very different from the figure of Rs. 37,574.40p which is being levied on the basis of 4 1/2 per cent formula under Clause 10 of the agreement. We are, therefore, unable to uphold the order passed by the tribunal reducing the amount of maintenance charges from Rs. 37,574.40p to Rs. 19,434. 00 from the date of the complaint to 31/3/1983and would remit the matter to the tribunal for fresh determination in accordance with law.