UNION OF INDIA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant writ petition under article 226 has been filed by the Union of India through General Manager, Northern Railway, New Delhi and the Divisional Railway Manager, Northern Railway, Jodhpur seeking following directions : " (i) by an appropriate writ, order or direction it may be declared that the provisions of section 78 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 are not applicable to the railways and its servants and the respondents and their officers may be restrained from interfering with the working of the railways. (ii) by an appropriate writ, order or direction or in alternative the section 78 as a whole may be declared illegal and be struck down and it may be declared that the respondents and their officers are not empowered to interfere in the working of the railways. (iii) any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this honourable Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioners. "

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that the employees of the Northern Railway book the goods for transportation to various stations and also deliver the goods, which are received from other stations to the concerned parties. As per the provisions of the Indian Railways Act, 1989, the railway administration is under obligation to make arrangements for receiving and forwarding traffic/goods without any unreasonable delay. THE railway administration is also under obligation to deliver the goods to the consignee or his authorised agent on production of the railway receipt.

(3.) AS far as question of validity of section 78 is concerned, it is no more res integra. The apex Court has upheld the validity of such provisions in State of Rajasthan v. D. P. Metals reported in [2001] 124 STC 611. Thereafter, the sub-clauses of section 78 have also been upheld by the division Bench of this Court in the case of Lalji Mulji Transport Company v. State of Rajasthan reported in [2002] 127 STC 365. Even otherwise, we fail to understand how the Union of India can challenge the validity of a State's Act. In view of the aforesaid, we find no merit in this writ petition and the same is dismissed. The interim order of this Court dated May 3, 1989 is made absolute. Petitioners shall comply with the said directions. Petition dismissed. .