SURANA INDUSTRIES LTD Vs. GENERAL MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is filed challenging the order of the 3rd respondent Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, Southern Railway dated 07.01.2008, under which the request of the petitioner company was rejected by the 3rd respondent on the ground that existing rules do not provide for Railway Officials witnessing survey conducted by parties.

(2.) THE petitioner company is dealing with Iron and Steel manufacturing business and having regular dealings with Steel Authority of India Ltd. (for short 'SAIL'). THE petitioner company placed orders for supply of Iron bars with SAIL, the first consignment was sent with a delay of one month with shortage of 8 MT of materials, when it was weighted outside and the second consignment was loaded at SCOB Siding Eastern Railway in original Wagon No.SC 90968 with the quantity of 62.600 MT of TMT bars under the Railway Receipt No.C/167822 dated 13.01.2007 and according to the petitioner, it is worth about Rs.22 lakhs and the consignment arrived at Chennai by transshipped box wagon No.NR 86234 on 26.10.2007 and invoice No. is C/00542, dated 13.01.2007.

(3.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, the measurement done when the consignment was made by the SAIL shows 62.600 MT witnessed by railway staff even though the rubber stamp shows that "Loading not supervised by Rly. Weighment witnessed by Rly. Staff". However, in the first weighment by the respondents, the weight is shown as 81.42 MT and re-weighment is shown as 83.78 Mt and on tare weight, the weight of the Steel consignment was shown as 79.46 MT. Therefore, as per the weighment done by the respondents there are at least three different weight shown and therefore, according to the petitioner having doubt about the genuineness of the weighment done by the respondents, the petitioner company has given a representation for weighing the consignment by a private weigh bridge in the presence of the departmental representatives. While dealing with such representation, the third respondent passed the impugned order stating that there is no rule providing for such weighment in a private weigh bridge in the presence of the departmental representatives. Aggrieved by that, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.