UNION OF INDIA Vs. DURMESH COAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this common judgment and order, we propose to dispose of these nine writ appeals, namely, W. A. No. 183/2001, W. A. No. 184/2001, W. A. No. 185/2001, W. A. No. 186/2001, W. A. No. 187/2001, W. A. No. 188/2001, W. A. No. 189/2001, W. A. No. 191/2001, W. A. No. 193/2001, which have arisen out of the common judgment and order, dated 07. 05. 2005, passed in WP (C) 5690/2000, WP (C) 5826/2000, WP (C) 6785/2000, WP (C) 7058/2000, WP (C) 7059/2000, WP (C) 7218/2000, WP (C) 1359/2000, WP (C) 1361/2001, WP (C) 1363/2001, and WP (C) 1495/2001 respectively.

(2.) BEFORE we come to the merit of these appeals, it is necessary to take note of the material facts, which have given rise to the present appeals. These facts are: W. P. (C) No. 6382/2001 (M/s N. Roy Coal Traders Vs. Union of India and Ors.), arose out of an application, made under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner's case being, in brief, thus: The petitioner transports coal within and outside the State and dispatches, during the course of its business, coal through railway wagons. At times, railway wagons, loaded with coal are found to be carrying weight in excess of the permissible limits and whenever such excess load is detected in any wagon, request is made by the petitioner to the railway authorities to off-load the excess coal before the wagons reach its destination so that no overloading penalty is imposed on the petitioner by the railway authorities by taking recourse to the provisions of Section 73 read with Section 72 of the Railways Act, 1989, but the railway authorities do not unload the excess load and/or adjust the excess load by unloading the excess quantity of coal into wagons, which may be carrying coal lesser than the quantity permitted. The petitioner, therefore, sought for directions from the Court to the railways to allow the petitioner to off-load the coal, whenever excess coal was detected. What is, however, of paramount importance to note is that the entire prayer of the petitioner, in the said writ petition, was made in anticipation of happening of certain events, namely, when the railway authority found, while carrying coal in their wagons, that the petitioner had loaded coal, in some wagons, in excess of the permissible limit and when the railway authority decided to levy penalty on the petitioner as per the rules of the railways. The learned Single Judge of this court, having considered the case of the parties concerned, concluded that the question of off-loading of excess coal is a question covered by the provisions of Section 72 and 73 of the Railways Act, 1989, and no direction, in advance, can be passed in anticipation as to what may happen tomorrow. The learned Single Judge, however, observed that as and when overloading of coal was detected, the railway authorities shall take action as provided under the relevant provisions of the Railways Act and the Rules made thereunder. On the basis of the conclusions, so reached, and the observations, so made, the said writ petition was dismissed by judgment and order, dated 24. 11. 2000, aforementioned. Following this decision, a batch of writ petitions, namely, WP (C) 6959/2000, WP (C) 5690/2000, WP (C) 6788/2000, WP (C) 7058/2000, WP (C) 7059/2000, WP (C) 7218/2000, WP (C) 1359/2001, WP (C) 1360/2001, WP (C) 1361/2001, WP (C) 1363/2001 and WP (C) 1495/2001 were heard by another learned Single Judge of this Court, who, having found that the writ petitions were covered by the decision, rendered in WP (C) 6382/2000 (M/s N. Roy Coal Traders Vs. Union of India and Ors.), disposed of the writ petitions by making observation that the writ petitions were covered by the judgment and order, dated 24. 11. 2000, passed in WP (C) 6382/2000 aforementioned. However, while disposing of the writ petition, as indicated hereinbefore, the learned Single Judge further observed and directed as under:

(3.) AGGRIEVED by the directions given to the railways that they shall allow the excess load to be adjusted against the wagons, carrying less quantity of coal than the permissible limit, the railways have impugned the directions, so made, in the present appeals.