RAJASTHAN STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question, which arises for consideration in the instant writ petition is whether this Court, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, should issue an appropriate writ, order or direction directing the Central Government to refund to the petitioners a sum of Rs. 3,56,69,671, which has been collected from the petitioners over a period of time by mistake, in view of the fact that the circular under which the charges were initially made leviable had been withdrawn. While the petitioners contend that payment of the charges having been made, and collected, under a mistake, the petitioners are entitled to maintain this writ petition praying for the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to refund the amount charged in excess, the respondents contend that the petitioners cannot maintain the instant writ petition for the reliefs prayed for, and must necessarily seek a remedy under the provisions of the Railways Act, 1989 for adjudication of such a claim for refund.

(2.) THE facts of the case, which are not in dispute, are :---Petitioners Rajasthan State Electricity Board, are an autonomous public body, wholly owned and controlled by the State Government of Rajasthan. For the generation of electricity at their Thermal Power Station at Kota (Rajasthan), coal is transported from collieries situate in areas covered by the Eastern and South Eastern Railways to station called Gurla, situate in Kota Division of the Western Railway. Between the 4th March, 1992 and 31st December, 1992, the petitioners booked 248 rakes for carrying coal to Gurla. The routes on which these wagons were transported include a section of Central Railway, viz. Katni Singrauli. In exercise of powers under section 71 of the Railways Act, 1989, the Central Government had imposed, for movement of coal wagons over this section "inflated distance rate" of freight. Consequently, for the coal wagons moved by the petitioners, the freight included the inflated distance rate for this particular section of Katni Singrauli. For the wagons booked by the petitioners, freight was paid at Gurla Station of Kota Division of the Western Railway. The railway authorities charged the petitioners freight on the basis of inflated distance rate over Katni Singrauli Section upto 31st December, 1992, but from the 1st January, 1993, the railways started charging freight on the basis of actual distance for Katni Singrauli Section, instead of inflated distance rate, and the petitioners paid the charges on that basis.

(3.) THE case of the petitioners is that in August, 1995, it came to learn from the Gujarat Electricity Board that the inflated distance rate on Katni Singrauli section had been dispensed with, and had been brought back to actual distance charge from 1st March, 1992. The petitioners then realised that the railway authorities had, without authority of the Central Government, charged, and realised from, the petitioners inflated distance rate, which was not only illegal, but also void ab initio, since the inflated distance rate had been abolished with effect from 1st March, 1992. The petitioners, therefore, wrote letters to the various railways authorities in August, 1995, including the Railway Board, the Chief Claims Officer of the Western Railway and the Senior Divisional Commercial Manager of the Kota Division. The Senior Divisional Commercial Manager of the Kota Division replied to the petitioners communication and observed that they had neither received any circular, nor was any such circular available in their office, regarding the withdrawal of freight of inflated distance over Katni Singrauli section of South Eastern Railway with effect from 1st March 1992. It, therefore, appears that the Senior Divisional Commercial Manger of the Kota Division was not aware of any circular withdrawing the freight of inflated distance over the aforesaid section with effect from 1st March, 1992. He further advised the petitioners that in case they wished to obtain a copy of the aforesaid circular, they should approach the Chief Commercial Manager, Churchgate, Mumbai. A copy of the said communication has been filed at Exhibit A. The petitioners wrote to the Chief Commercial Manager, Churchgate, Mumbai, and received a reply on 25th January, 1996 that the matter was under inquiry. The petitioners received no further response from the Chief Claims officer of the Western Railway, and in these circumstances, the petitioners wrote to the Railway Board. The Board by its letter dated 4th June, 1996 reiterated that no refund was permissible, as the same was time barred and suit barred. The petitioners thereafter took a last step to bring the matter to the notice of the Honble Railway Minister through a Member of Parliament. However, the Honble Railway Minister by his letter dated 25th March, 1997, informed that the refund was not permissible after so many years, and the claim had become time barred and suit barred. A copy of the letter of the Honble Minister dated 25th March, 1997 has been produced as Exhibit E.