JYOTI ENTERPRISES Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ application has been filed for quashing (i) Annexure-3, by which 'N' Box wagons loaded with iodised salt en route to Tatanagar were weighed behind the back of the petitioner, (ii) Annexure-4 by which payment of penal freight and detention charges was demanded from the petitioner against 19 'N' Box wagons, (iii) Annexure-7 by which payment was demanded as stated above with the threat to stop delivery of the next consignment, (iv) Annexure-10 by which payment of railway dues was demanded and in default the seized consignments of iodised salt containing in two wagons to be put on public auction, (v) Annexure-11, the sale letter dated 2-9-2000, by which 1478 bags of iodised salt were to be sold by public auction and (vi) Annexure-14, a letter of the Senior Divisional Commissioner, South Eastern Railways, Chakradharpur Division, by which the petitioner was directed to pay the penal freight, detention charges and wharfage charges and to command upon the respondents to deliver 1478 bags of iodised salt which were withheld/seized containing two wagons-load.

(2.) The questions to be determined in this writ petition are (i) whether the re-weighment en route of the consigned goods behind the back of the consignee/consignor/endorsed consignee is violative of the principles of natural justice and (ii) whether the lien provided under Section 83 of the Indian Railways Act can be exercised by the respondents without compliance of the statutory provisions.

(3.) . The aforesaid questions arose out of the facts that petitioner is an endorsed consignee of M/s. Rani Salt Refinery Pvt. Limited and Bajaj Salt Industries. From Chirai Railway Station, Gujarat, a consignment of iodised salt was sent to Tatanagar-destination station, vide R. R. No. 975001 to 975005. That consignment reached Tatanagar on 17-2-2000 and was delivered to the petitioner without any dispute and without any re-weighment before delivery. At that time of delivery, no claim was made from the petitioner of any penal freight for overloading and the petitioner was not informed at that time that the consignment has been re-weighed en route by the Railways and overloading was detected and consequently, the petitioner was liable to pay the penal charges for that overloading. This fact is an admitted one by the respondent, vide paragraph No. 7 of the counter-affidavit. Thereafter, many other consignments were dispatched to the petitioner from the different parts of the country and were received at Tatanagar by the petitioner, but subsequently when another consignment of iodised salts, vide R. R. No. 873201 to 873204, were booked from Vivaniya Railway Station on 20-8-2000, to be delivered to the petitioner in 40 BCX wagons, out of those 40 wagons, one wagon became sick and the Railways got this sick wagon in its custody. Consequently, 39 wagons arrived at the destination station, out of those 39 wagons, articles loaded in 37 wagons were allowed to be removed by the petitioner and 1478 bags, each contained 75 kgs. of iodised salt, were not unloaded from the two remaining wagons and not delivered to the petitioner on the ground that the penal freight and detention charges against the first consignment (supra) received by the petitioner on 17-2-2000 against overloading had not been realized. Thereafter the dispute arose. The petitioner doubted the re-weighment of the first consignment and by filing representation, disputed the claim of the respondent-railways with regard to the payment of penal freight, wharfage, detention charges etc. and also the contemplation of the respondents to realize those charges by selling the detained consignments by them. Hence this writ petition. On summarization, the petitioner's case is that (i) the re-weighment en route is concoction and therefore, any re-weighment in absence of the petitioner is violative of the principles of natural justice, (ii) excess loading or overloading, if any, detected is due to the residuals of lime stone, coal, etc. which were not removed from the types of the wagons in which salt was loaded and therefore, these have been added to the weight of the loaded salt, showing excess weight and (iii) the weight of salt was not excess and if at all it was, it was due to the fact that the salt might have absorbed moisture or there might be rain during transit, which might have contributed to increase its weight, if at all detected.