SUNIL KUMAR AGARWALA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The learned Advocate representing the appellants submitted to have served notice upon the respondents/Railways. However, none appeared to represent the respondents/Railways. Mr. Sukumar Bhattacharyya, learned Advocate who generally represents the Railway Authorities is requested by this Court to appear on behalf of the respondents/Railways along with his Junior colleague. Let their appointments be regularized. Mr. Prantik Gorai, learned Advocate appeared yesterday at 2 p.m. and mentioned the instant writ petition to be listed today for hearing, pleading urgency that the learned Bench of Railway Claims Tribunal, Kolkata in dealing with Misc. Case No. 01/Kol/2023 had issued warrant of arrest to be executed against the present appellants in FMA/67/2025. Considering the urgency pleaded as aforesaid the instant appeal was listed for hearing.

(2.) The learned Government Pleader appearing to represent the private parties, pointed out that respondent no. 8 had been inadvertently impleaded and should be deleted.

(3.) The learned Advocate representing the appellants submitted the instant writ petition had been filed being aggrieved by the order dtd. 3/10/2024 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Kolkata Bench in Claim Application being Misc. Case No. 01/2023 which was pronounced beyond the jurisdiction of the aforesaid Railway Claims Tribunal dealing with the subject-matter of classification or reclassification of any commodity contrary to the provisions enumerated in Sec. 37 of the Railways Act, 1989 whereby the Railway Tribunal was precluded from dealing with the classification or reclassification of any commodity. It was further submitted that the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction of considering as to whether the consignment of salt would be non-refined iodized salt or sub-standard non-refined iodized salt, since the Salt Commission had approved the consignment prior to its delivery through the racks of the Railways. It was further submitted that the appellants were denied the concessions to the extent of 15% in the freight rates for booking of non-refined salt meant for human consumption by the Railways wherein the distance was not less than 1,500 kilometers. Subsequently, when it was noticed that the consignment of salt so transported fell below the requisite quality for human consumption penalty was imposed to the extent of Rs.79,56,280.00 inclusive of the interest at the rate of 7% with regard to three distinct undercharges of Rs.26,14,056.00, Rs.8,71,352.00 and Rs.8,71,351.00 against the consignees Bajranglal Agarwala, Dwarka Prasad Chouthmal, Madanlal Gourishankar respectively through an office order issued by the Eastern Railways vide Memo No. GSS/CP/Salt/11/23 dtd. 13/11/2024 pursuant to the judgment of Railway Claims Tribunal, Kolkata Bench dtd. 3/10/2024 and Senior DSM/SDAH's letter No. CG- 8/CP/VI/Certificate Case dtd. 12/11/2024. The learned Advocate representing the appellants further argued the intent, purpose and object of the instant appeal would be frustrated if the impugned judgment and order dtd. 3/10/2024 was not stayed from being effective.