HINDUSTAN MATERIALS Vs. RAILWAY RATES TRIBUNAL AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Hindustan Materials, Bombay, call in question by these petitions the legality of certain orders passed by the Railway Rates Tribunal, Madras. There has been some antecedent history preceding these petitions, which it is necessary to state, in order to understand in its proper perspective the questions raised in these petitions.

(2.) THE Hindustan Materials, Bombay, as well as another firm, the Engineering Supplies and Co., Bombay, were engaged in' the purchase and transport of cast iron pipes from Bhadravathi to Ambarnath and Kalyan during the years 1951 to 1953. The transport between these stations involved the carrying of the goods both by the Southern Railway and the Central Railway. The Engineering Supplies Company complained there were station -to -station rates available between Bhadravathi to Bombay, a distance longer than that between Bhadravathi to Ambarnath and Kalyan, while there was no such favourable rate available to them when their goods moved between Bhadravathi and Ambarnath. On this ground an application was made to the concerned Railways for the fixation of station -to -station rates from Bhadravathi to Ambarnath and Kalyan. The Railways concerned declined this request, and thereupon the Engineering Supplies Company preferred a complaint to the Railway Rates Tribunal under Section 41(1) of the Indian Railways Act, claiming that station -to -station rates should be directed to be quoted from Bhadravathi to Ambarnath and Kalyan on a proper basis. This was registered as Complaint No. 2 of 1952 and was filed on 15th February, 1952. The prayers in this complaint included not merely the issue of a direction to the Railways concerned to quote proper station -to -station rates but also for a refund of the excess charges collected from the Engineering Supplies Company from January, 1951. On receipt of this complaint, the Tribunal treated the proceeding as one in which others were interested within Rule 17(1) of the Railways Rates Tribunal Rules and a public notice was given of this complaint. In response to this notice, the Hindustan Materials, Bombay, filed an application on 2nd June, 1953, for leave to intervene in the proceedings on the side of the complainant. The leave applied for was granted on 4th June, 1953, and the interveners filed their pleadings on 17th June, 1953. The relevant prayers contained in the interveners' pleadings were similar to those in the original complaint. With this array of parties the enquiry before the Tribunal proceeded. The Tribunal rendered their decision on 9th October, 1953. The decretal portion of their order ran in these terms:

(3.) IN the application, Southern Railway v. Railway Rates Tribunal, (1956) 1 M.L.J. 395, filed to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Railways did not challenge the correctness of the decision regarding the directions as to the proper station -to -station rates as determined by the Tribunal and in fact issued a notification (Special Rate Circulars, No. 6 of 1953 of the Central Railway and No. 15 of 1953 of the Southern Railway) quoting station -to -station rates as directed by the Tribunal to be effective from 9th October, 1953. The only matters which the Railways raised were (1) the legality of the declaration as regards the propriety of the rates to be charged by the Railways between January, 1951, till the date of the complaint that is 15th February, 1952 and (2) the legality of the direction to the Railways to quote station -to -station rates from 15th February, 1952, the date of the complaint, till 9th October, 1953, the date of the order. The contentions urged before this Court and set forth in the affidavit in support of the petition for the issue of a writ were, that the Tribunal had jurisdiction only to make an order to be operative from the date on which it was passed and that therefore the order could not be given any efficacy or operation before that date. In view of the controversy that has now arisen we consider it convenient to set out the contentions raised by the Railways by extracting the relevant passages from the affidavit on behalf of the Railways of the Southern Railway v. Railway Rates Tribunal, (1956) 1 M.LJ. 395.