IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CWJC No.10840 of 2010
BAJAJ HINDUSTHAN LTD., A PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY
INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956
HAVING ITS UNIT AT GOLA GOKARNATH, P.O. & P.S.
GOLA, DISTT.- LAKHIMPUR KHERI (UTTAR PRADESH)
THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED AGENT SHREE RAM
BHALOTIA, S/O SRI S.G. BHALOTIA
Versus
1. EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY HAVING ITS OFFICE AT B-
BLOCK DIGHI, HAJIPUR, DISTT.- VAISHALI (BIHAR)
THROUGH ITS GENERAL MANAGER
2. THE CHIEF COMMERCIAL MANAGER, EAST CENTRAL
RAILWAY B-BLOCK, DIGHI, HAJIPUR, DISTT.- VAISHALI
(BIHAR)
3. SENIOR DIVISIONAL COMMERCIAL MANAGER EAST
CENTRAL RAILWAY, DANAPUR, P.O. & P.S. DANAPUR,
DISTT.- PATNA (BIHAR)
4. CHIEF GOODS SUPERVISOR, EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY
FATUHA RAILWAY GOODS YARD, FATUHA, PATNA
(BIHAR)
5. GOODS SHED SUPERVISOR, EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY
FATUHA RAILWAY GOODS YARD, FATUHA, PATNA
(BIHAR)
6. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, RAILWAY PROTECTION
FORCE, FATUHA STATION FATUHA, DISTT.- PATNA
For the petitioner : Mr. Y.V.Giri, Sr. Advocate.
Mr. Raju Giri, Advocate.
For the Respondent no. 7 : Mr. Ravij Kr.Verma, Sr. Advocate.
Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate.
For the Railways : Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, Advocate.
-----------
O R D E R
5. 01-09-2010 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner
(Bajaj Hindusthan Ltd.) challenging the Letter (Annexure-5) of Ex-
Goods Shed Supervisor, E.C. Railway, Fatuha written to M/s Pratik
Enterprises (Respondent no. 7) detaining 5 wagons (3058.5
quintals) of sugar of the petitioner company kept at open railway
yard at Fatuha until he produces railway receipts of 12 wagons
sugar, which was released in favour of Respondent No. 7 on earlier
consignment. Another relief sought for is for a direction to
2
respondent authorities (Respondent nos. 1 to 6) to immediately
release the aforesaid 05 wagons sugar lying in open place which the
petitioner company had booked with the railways at Gola
Gorakhnath via Gonda to be transported to Fatuha Railway Station
so that the same may be delivered to intending purchasers.
2. The claim of the petitioner (Bajaj Hindusthan Ltd.)
is that it is a sugar factory which is a public limited company
incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and it booked 42
wagons of sugar from Gola Gorakhnath Railway Station for
Fatuha vide goods train reaching Fatuha on 27-06-2010. It is
further claimed by the petitioner that out of 42 wagons, 33 wagons
were for M/s Pratik Enterprises (Respondent no. 7) and the
remaining 09 wagons were for other purchasers and hence, when
the goods train reached Fatuha Station, 33 wagons of sugar were
received by the petitioner’s agent who gave it to M/s Pratik
Enterprises (Respondent no. 7). Further 04 wagons of sugar were
also received by the petitioner’s agent who supplied it to the other
purchasers, but the remaining 05 wagons of sugar, which were for
other purchasers, were not given by the authorities to the
petitioner’s agent on the ground that on some earlier occasion 12
wagons of sugar were received by M/s Pratik Enterprises
(Respondent no. 7) without showing any railway receipts merely on
the basis of indemnity bond.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner (Bajaj Hindusthan
Ltd.) submitted that 05 wagons of sugar, which were blocked by
the railway authorities (Respondent nos. 1 to 6) were not concerned
3
with M/s Pratik Enterprises (Respondent no. 7) rather they
belonged to the petitioner(Bajaj Hindusthan Ltd.), which was
intended for other purchasers and hence, the respondents authorities
were not justified in blocking 05 wagons of sugar, although the
petitioner had produced all the 42 rent receipts for the present
consignment. It was also argued that the name of the consignees
were not written in the railway receipts and it transpires that the
railway authorities had subsequently included the name of M/s
Pratik Enterprises (Respondent no. 7) on all those 42 railway
receipts, which was obviously for illegal purpose.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the
respondent Nos. 1 to 6 vehemently opposed the contentions of the
learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that all rights and
liabilities of the consignment had passed to M/s Pratik Enterprises
(Respondent no. 7), who was the consignee noted in all the 42
railway receipts, which reached Fatuha Station on 27-06-2010. It
was further stated that railway is not concerned with the internal
arrangement between the petitioner and Respondent no. 7 and it
was M/s Pratik Enterprises, who was liable for all the 42 wagons of
sugar. It was also averred by learned counsel for the respondent
authorities( Respondent no. 1 to 6) that on earlier occasion also 42
wagons of sugar had come in the name of M/s Pratik Enterprises
(Respondent no. 7), but it produced only 30 railway receipts and
took away all the 42 wagons of sugar producing indemnity bond
for the remaining 12 wagons of sugar whereafter Respondent no. 7
had to produce rent receipt for the remaining 12 wagons of sugar,
4
which it never did and hence, the authorities concerned were quite
justified in blocking the delivery of 05 wagons of sugar in the
present consignment. Learned counsel for the said contesting
respondents also relied upon Section 83 of the Railways Act, 1989,
which empowered the authorities concerned to detain any
subsequent consignment of such person for whose earlier
consignment he had failed to pay on demand any freight or other
charges due from him and the authorities were even entitled to sell
the item if it was perishable in nature.
5. M/s Pratik Enterprises (Respondent no. 7) also
appeared in the case and supported the claim of the petitioner(Bajaj
Hindusthan Ltd.) stating that earlier consignment was not of the
petitioner or of Respondent no. 7 rather it belonged to Prakash
Bhalotia & Bros. of Kolkata who was the consignee as would be
apparent from Annexure-R/2 of the counter affidavit filed by the
respondent authorities. He further submitted that M/s Pratik
Enterprises (Respondent no. 7) is of Patna whereas the said
consignee of the earlier consignment was M/s Prakash Bhalotia &
Bros. of Kolkata which had no concern with Respondent no. 7 and
the said earlier consignment had come from Sangli which was
unconnected with the petitioner.
6. From the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the
case as well as the pleadings of the parties and the materials on
record, it is quite apparent that earlier consignment which is
annexed as Annexure-R/2 to the counter affidavit of respondent
authorities, was in the name of Prakash Bhalotia & Bros. of
5
Kolkata, which was unconnected with the petitioner (Bajaj
Hindusthan Ltd.). The indemnity bond with respect to the earlier
consignment was also issued by the said Prakash Bhalotia & Bros.
of Kolkata and there is nothing to show from the said indemnity
bond that M/s Pratik Enterprises (Respondent no. 7) had any
connection with the said indemnity bond with respect o the earlier
consignment.
7. So far the present consignment is concerned,
admittedly, it was sent by the petitioner (Bajaj Hindusthan Ltd.)
from Gola Gorakhnath to Fatuha and all the requisites including the
excise duty etc. had already been paid and there were no dues with
respect to the entire 42 wagons of sugar of the present
consignment. Hence, there was no occasion at all for the
Respondent authorities to block 5 wagons of sugar due to non-
production of railway receipts of the previous consignment when
for the present consignment all the railways receipts including for
the 5 blocked wagons were already produced.
8. It is quite strange that the respondent authorities are
claiming that M/s Pratik Enterprises (Respondent no. 7) had not
produced railways receipts for 12 wagons of the earlier
consignment, but in spite of that the railways authorities had
blocked only 5 wagons of sugar of the present consignment without
giving any reason as to why only 5 wagons of sugar were blocked
and not 12 wagons of sugar. No valid explanation has been given
by the respondent authorities in the counter affidavit or in any
documents annexed therewith.
6
9. In the said circumstances, 42 railway receipts
having already been produced by the petitioner (Bajaj Hindusthan
Ltd.) for the present consignment, there was no occasion for the
respondent authorities to block 5 wagons of sugar on such frivolous
ground. Hence, Section 83 of the Railway Act, 1989 is not attracted
to the facts and circumstances of this case.
10. It may be interesting to note that the impugned
order has been passed by an Ex-Goods Shed Supervisor of Fatuha
about whom Respondent no. 7 had specifically claimed that he had
already been suspended earlier. This claim has not been denied by
the respondent authorities. Furthermore, from the impugned order,
it is also apparent that he had put his signature below which his
designation has been mentioned as Ex-Goods Shed Supervisor,
Fatuha. This fact not only shows that the order issued and steps
taken by such person is absolutely without jurisdiction, but is also
very surprising as to how the authorities of the railways are
tolerating such illegal activities by such person.
11. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is quite
apparent that the entire acts of the authorities concerned, is
absolutely illegal, arbitrary and perverse. Accordingly, impugned
order/direction (Annexure-5) issued by the Ex-Goods Shed
Supervisor of East Central Railway at Fatuha is hereby quashed
and the respondent authorities are directed to immediately release
the aforesaid 5 wagons (3058.5 quintals) of sugar in favour of the
petitioner (Bajaj Hindusthan Ltd.), who had booked the same with
the railways at Gola Gorakhnath and had already produced receipts
7
with respect thereto.
12. However, if the said sugar has been damaged, stolen
or has perished due to the latches and negligence of the respondent
railways authorities, the petitioner (Bajaj Hindusthan Ltd.) shall be
entitled to be adequately compensated by the railways authorities
and if the said authorities fail to adequately compensate the same,
the petitioner (Bajaj Hindusthan Ltd.) shall be entitled to raise the
issue before the appropriate forum, which will decide the matter in
accordance with law.
13. However, the relevant authorities shall be entitled to
take appropriate steps against concerned persons with respect to 12
wagons of sugar of the earlier consignment for which railway
receipts were not produced by the consignee concerned.
14. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this
writ petition is allowed.
Sujit (S.N.Hussain, J.)