(1.) The petitioner being aggrieved by the demand notice dated 1-7-2006 (two in number) has filed the present petition on the ground that such demand is absolutely illegal and is based upon no evidence or is based upon alleged evidence which has been collected behind the back of the petitioner and the respondents have reached to a conclusion against the interest of the petitioner without providing him any opportunity of hearing.
(2.) The short facts necessary for disposal of the present petition are that the petitioner for transportation of the coal from Akaltara Bilaspur Division (Chhattisgarh) to Jhukehi in Satna Division (Madhya Pradesh) had booked certain Railway wagons. At least on eleven occasions the petitioner transported coal from Akaltara to Jhukeni. It is to be noted that at the place of loading of the coal, facility of weighbridge is not available with the railways and similarly, facility of weighbridge at Jhukehi is also not available. It appears that after the coal was loaded in the wagons, the wagons were weighed at Chmapa where the railway authorities have facility of a weighbridge. It does not appear from the records that at the time of weighment of consignment any notice was given to the petitioner or his representatives that the entire consignment would be weighed at Chmapa and on basis of the said weight, the charges/freight would be recovered from the petitioner. It appears that the consignment reached the destination right in time and the delivery was taken by the consignee. It also appears from the records that on 1-7-2006, the respondents issued two notices to the petitioner that on the weighment of consignment it was found that the weight of coal was more than what was shown in the railway receipt. The railway authorities, therefore, demanded a sum of Rs. 17,22,777/- in the first notice and a sum of Rs. 3,75,371/- in the second notice. Immediately after receiving the notices, the petitioner raised the dispute. The respondents thereafter supplied a copy of the weighing receipt to the petitioner and stood on their stand and confirmed the demand. The petitioner, thereafter, issued notice (Annexure-P/5) on 8-10-2006 and yet another notice dated 22-10-2006 (Annexure-P/6) and submitted that in absence of the weighbridge facility at a particular loading station, a party is entitled to fill the wagon up to the mark as appended inside the wagon and suh filling of the wagon is taken to be of that particular weight. His submission is that in the present matter, the petitioner was never informed prior to the weighment nor any notice of hearing was given to him and the authority straightway issued a notice for recovery. The submission in fact is that the entire action on the part of the railway authorities is ex parte, lopsided and is contrary to law.
(3.) Shri Dharmadhikari, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that from perusal of Section 65 and Section 73 of the Indian Railways Act, 1989, it would clearly appear that a railway receipt shall be prima facie evidence of the weight and the number of packages referred to in the railway receipt. His submission is that in case the weighment is to be rechecked or the number of packages are to be recounted then a notice to the petitioner is required. Referring to Section 73 of the Act, it is submitted that if there is any dispute regarding the weighment and number of packages then in such a case the dispute should be resolved before the delivery of the goods. The submission is that in the present matter, the consignments were booked between 21-12-2005 and 11-5-2006, the consignments were eleven in number and within a period of 2/4 days the delivery of the goods were taken by the petitioner/consignee and, therefore, issuance of the notice on 1-7-2006 is absolutely illegal.