NARBHERAM VISHRAM Vs. SOUTH EASTERN RAILWAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Moushumi Bhattacharya, J 1.The writ petitioners pray for cancelling of four notices of demand issued by the South Eastern Railways in relation to stacking charges of the petitioners' goods at Barbil Railway Sidings. The impugned notices of demand were issued on 13/1/2007, 14/8/2008, 20/7/2010 and 22/12/2011. By the first notice dtd. 13/1/2007, the respondents / Railways claimed a sum of Rs.11,26,56,480.00 as stacking charges and referred to a joint inspection done on 3/12/2006. The said demand notice also contained a handwritten chart in support of the claim of Rs.11,26,56,480.00. The petitioners replied to the demand notice on 19/1/2007 disputing the imposition of the wharfage charges. The respondents / Railways did not reply to this letter and issued a second demand notice dtd. 14/8/2008 after a gap of 19 months. The second demand notice also raised an amount of Rs.11,26,56,480.00 which was identical to the first demand notice and asked the petitioners to treat the said notice as final and most urgent. The petitioners replied to the second demand notice by a letter dtd. 18/10/2008 reiterating its objection to levying of the wharfage charges and demanded that the bills in that respect be dropped by the respondents. The respondents chose not to reply to the petitioners' letter and issued a third demand letter on 20/7/2010 after a lapse of 21 months and a fourth demand letter on 22/12/2011 after 38 months.

(2.) The above facts are undisputed and the present writ petition was filed after the fourth demand letter dtd. 22/12/2011.

(3.) The affidavit-in-opposition of the respondents/ Railways states that the petitioners are liable for the payment demanded since the petitioners stacked 16,616 metric tons of iron ores in the Railway premises without permission and dumped the materials without authorisation. The position of the Railways is that the stacking of materials was detected by a joint team and calculated as per paragraph 7 of the Rates Circular No. 4(G) of 2006. It is also contended that a surprise inspection was carried out by a joint team on 2/12/2006 and a sketch map of stacking material was prepared on this basis showing the petitioners' stocks marked as serial no. 5 and 6 lying in the said godown.