ASSAM SALT MERCHANT ASSOCIATION Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr N.M. Lahiri, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr B.K. Sarma, Standing counsel for Railways and Mr. K.N. Choudhury, Sr. CGSC. 1. Facts of the present case are that the petitioner is the association of Salt Merchant in the State of Assam and for the fourth quarter of 1994, i.e. 1.10.94 to 31.12.94, for the members of the petitioner association 29 rakes of salt were allotted by the Salt Commissioner for the State of Assam and as per the programme indents were to be registered with the railways by the allottees by 31.12.94. The allottees through the petitioner association, however, made a representation dated 14.11.94 before the Salt Commissioner for allowing them time upto Feburary, 1995 for registration of indents. A similar representation dated 14.11.94 was also submitted by the petitioner association on behalf of the allottees to the Executive Director (TT) Railway Board, New Delhi for allowing time upto February, 1995 for registration of indents in respect of the aforesaid quarter emding 31.12.94. While the aforesaid 2 representations dated 14.11.94 (Annexure-III and IV) were pending before the Salt Commissioner and Executive Director (TT) Railway Board, New Delhi, the petitioner association moved this Court in Civil Rule No. 5096/94 and the said Civil Rule was disposed of by order dated 22.12.94 by this Court directing the Salt Commissioner as well as Executive Director (TT) Railway Board, New Delhi, to take into consideration various facts stated in the representations as well as averments made by the petitioner association that for the State of West Bengal time for allotment of wagon have been fixed on 15.1.95. Pursuant to the said direction the Salt Commissioner and the Executive Director (TT) Railway Board, New Delhi, disposed of the representations and the representations of the petitioner association were rejected. Aggrieved by the said order of rejection, the petitioner association has moved this Court praying for a direction on the respondents to extend time for registration of indents by the members of the petitioner association for the fourth quarter of 1994 till 31.1.95. At the hearing of the writ petition, Mr Lahiri, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that in the meanwhile, out of 28 allottees, 25 allottees have already registered their indents within 31.12.94 and only three allottees have not been able to register their indents within the aforesaid time limit. The said three allottees are M/s Indo-Mercantile (Pvt) Ltd., M/s Prime Time and M/s Trade Com. Mr Lahiri submits that a plain reading of the order dated 22.12.94 of this Court in CR No. 5096/94 would show that the Salt Commissioner was directed to take into consideration various facts in the representation dated 14.11.94 and not merely the fact that for the State of West Bengal time for registration of indents had been fixed upto 15.1.95 but the order dated 28.12.94 of the Railway Board, copy of which is produced before this Court, would show that only contention that the West Bengal programme had been given extension upto 15.1.95 had been taken into consideration by the Railways and that the other grounds taken in the representation for extension of time upto the end of February, 1995 had not been taken into consideration. Regarding the order passed by the Salt Commissioner, Mr Lahiri submits that the Salt Commissioner has not applied his independent mind and has rejected the representation of the petitioner association on the basis of consultation with the Railway Board as would be evident from the letter produced by Sr CGSC. Mr Lahiri also submits that the only inconvenience that has been pleaded by the Railways in their affidavit-in-opposition to the writ petition is that delay in registration of indents and extension of time to the allottees for registration of indents beyond 31.12.94 would dislocate the programme of wagons allotment and movement as would be evident in paragraph 24 of the said affidavit-in-opposition but the petitioners association has stated on affidavit in paragraph 18 of affidavit-in-reply that there was no such question of dislocation of programme as the respondents have mot exhausted the rakes of third quarter and at any rate the programme of the railways with regard to movement of wagon will not be dislocated if only three of the remaining allottees are allowed registration of their indents within the extended time. Mr. B.K. Sarma, standing counsel for the Railways, howeveer, submits that if out of 28 allottees, 25 allottees could register themselves by the end of December, 1994, there was no good reason as to why three remaining allottees could not register their indents by the end of December 1994. Mr K.N. Choudhury, Sr CGSC, submits that since the registration of indents - within the time limit is insisted upon for the purpose of ensuring that the railways are not inconvenienced in their programme of movement of wagons, the Salt Commissioner had to consult the railways before disposing of the representation. Having heard the learned couasel for the parties, I am of the opinion that in the present case there is no dispute that the three remaining allottees who are members of the petitioner association have in fact been allotted one rake each of salt. The only dispute is as to whether time could be extended upto 31.12.94 in view of the difficulties shown by the three allottees not being able to register their indents within 31.12.94. The only inconvenience that appears to me on perusal of affiadvit in-opposition of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 as well as the letter dated 5.1.95 of the Salt Commissioner to the Sr CGSC is that the programme of the Railways with regard to availability and movement of wagons would be affected. There is, however, further dispute as to whether the programme of movement of wagons has already drawn up by the Railways with regard to the rakes for the fourth quarter of December, 1994. Further assuming that such programme has already been drawn up, it is quite possible that the Railways may be able to accommodate the three remaining allottees with regard to allotment of wagons and alter their programme accordingly. But the authority who can take decision in this regard is not this Court but the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, namely Railways and accordingly, I am of the view that interest of justice would be served in this case if the said respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are directed to consider extension of time for registration of indents by the aforesaid remaining allottees till such time as they deem fit taking into consideration the availability of wagons and the programme of wagons movement and in case the said respondent Nos. 2 and 3 extends time for registration of indents in respect of the aforesaid three allottees, their sponsorship shall be approved by the respondent No.4 upto such time as is decided by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3. With the aforesaid observations and direction the writ petition is disposed of,