GENERAL MANAGER Vs. SECRETARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners challenge the impugned judgment dated 18.12.2000 passed by the Railways Claim Tribunal - 1st respondent herein, in holding that the decision taken by the petitioners / respondents in Complaint No.2/1997 to increase the value of the land in question by 10% every year, is arbitrary and without any reasonable basis, had filed this writ petition.

(2.) The facts leading to the filing of this writ petition, briefly narrated are as follows:-

(3.) Mr.V.G.Suresh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has drawn the attention of this Court to section 36 of the Railways Act, 1989 and would submit that the said provision speaks about the complaint against the Railway Administration and as per sub-clause [3], the complaint may be preferred against the Railway Administration in respect of levying any other charge, which is unreasonable and however, in the case on hand, the Tribunal had gone to the extent of setting aside the portion of the decision in the form of revised guidelines and hence, on the sole ground, the impugned judgment warrants interference. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, on the merits of the case, would contend that since the revision of land rent was reasonable, taking into consideration of the relevant factors, the Railway Rates Tribunal ought not to have interfered with the same in exercise of its jurisdiction and prays for setting aside the impugned Judgment.