EASTERN BHUTAN COAL COMPANY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal preferred against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 26.7.99 in Misc. Case No. 805/99 in WP. (C)No. 3347/ 99.

(2.) It appears that a consignment of coal for Chandigarh was found to be overloaded, when weighed at Tughlakabad. Due to overloading, on the excess quantity penal charges etc. were levied including freight charges-amounting to about Rs 31 lakhs. The petitioner-appellant approached this Court with a prayer for re-weighment of the consignment. By order dated 2.7.99 this Court passed an interim order and the respondents were directed for re-weighment of the 41 BCN Wagons booked from Rangia Railway Station on 17.6.99 which consignment reached Chandigarh on 25.6.99 under RR Nos. A- 627623 and A-627626. Weighment was accordingly carried out at Laskar Weigh Bridge. There too the consignment was found to be overloaded. Penal charges to the extent of Rs.32,94,008/- were levied. It appears, after re-weighment and levy of penal charges the petitioner-appellant again moved an application before the learned Single Judge complaining that the weighing machine at Laskar Weigh Bridge was defective and yet another prayer seems to have been made to the effect that the penal freight charge should be re-calculated in terms of law as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case reported in 1995 (5) SCC 126 (Jagjit Cotton Textile Mills-Vs-Union of India and others). Learned Single Judge observed that after re- weighment of the consignment, no order for weighment once again at any other weigh bridge was to be passed. In our view, the learned Single Judge committed no error in coming to the above conclusion while dealing with the matter relating to interim relief. Once the reweighment was already allowed, the question raised thereafter about the weigh bridge being defective or not has been rightly rejected. As before us, it appears, much stress was given before the Single Judge also on paragraph 42 of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to above. We find that the learned Single Judge again rightly observed that there is nothing in the decision providing that such overloaded goods after a certain limit are to be carried free or without any charges or penal charges. Learned Single Judge has observed that the question relating to imposition of the rate of penal freight etc. may be considered in the Civil Rule. In the above circumstances, while disposing of the misc. case it has been provided that the petitioner- appellant, if so advised, may take delivery of the goods on payment of the penal freight claimed by the Railways, subject to the decision in the Civil Rule. We find that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is quite justified and it does not call for any interference in an appeal arising out of an order relating to interim relief during the pendency of the writ petition. At that stage, it appears that the petitioner prayed for time till July 31, 1999 to take delivery of the goods which request was accepted by the learned Single Judge. Before us learned counsel for the appellant has not made any request for extension of time, instead request has been made that the appellant may be allowed to furnish Bank guarantee instead of payment of the amount as demanded by the Railways. We hardly find any justification for permitting the appetllant to furnish bank guarantee instead of payment of the amount in cash as demanded by the Railways. The request for furnishing bank guarantee is refused. We find no good reason to interfere in appeal against the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The appeal lacks merit.

(3.) At this stage learned counsel for the appellant made a request that the time which was allowed by the learned Single Judge to take delivery of the consignment on payment of the charges as levied by the Railways may be extended and some more time may be granted for the purpose.