PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. RAILWAY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall dispose of Civil Misc. No. 4716-CII of 2004 filed on behalf of the respondents in writ petition i.e., Railway Board and its functionaries (hereinafter to be referred as " the objectors") against the award dated 21.11.2003 passed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.K. Bahri (Retired). The facts leading to the filing of said objections are that the Punjab State Electricity Board (hereinafter to be referred as "the Board") filed a writ petition before this Court for quashing of letter dated 16.08.2001, Annexure P-12, and order dated 15.05.2002, Annexure P-21, and to implement its decision of withdrawal of 15% surcharge levied and forthwith refund the amount due as per the reconciled statements or in the alternative to adjust the same against the future freight payment.

(2.) The said relief was claimed on the basis that the Board has thermal power stations at Ropar, Lehra-Mohabhat and Bhatinda. The Board requires coal in huge quantities for running of these thermal plants and that such coal is transported by the objectors. Since the objectors have monopolistic right to run railways in the entire country, the Board has no option but to deal with the objectors for transportation of coal to its thermal plants since no other form of transportation is possible considering the quantum and frequency of the requirement. The usual terms of carriage by the objectors requires payment towards freight either at booking station/ loading point or at destination/ unloading site. Non payment of freight leads to coercive methods of recovery such as detention of goods, their sale and recovery from proceeds etc. An arrangement was arrived at between the Board and the objectors to meet the obligation of the Board to freight for smoother traffic of goods movement for public utility services. Under the said arrangement, the Board was required to deposit and keep with the Railways an advance payment towards freight for one month and settle the current freight of consignments periodically. The objectors levied surcharge of 15% on the freight charges on the ground that freight has not been paid regularly or settled periodically.

(3.) It was the case of the Board that 15% surcharge is not payable since advance towards freight was in deposit. It was their case that till such time any amount of freight is available, the surcharge could not be levied. However, it is the case of the railways that non payment of freight periodically in terms of the arrangement entitles to claim surcharge from the Board.