Bansal & Co. & ANR Vs. Union of
India & Ors [1985] INSC 259 (20 December 1985)
MUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (J) MUKHARJI, SABYASACHI
(J) PATHAK, R.S.
CITATION: 1986 AIR 452 1985 SCR Supl. (3) 880
1986 SCC (1) 556 1985 SCALE (2)1457
ACT:
Indian Railways Act 1890 & s. 27A &
Preferential Traffic Schedule - Movement of Coal - Priorities for - Stations
nominated in Assam and Meghalaya Zones - Whether can be treated as stations at
colliery sidings - Equitable distribution of coal - Necessity of - Movement of
traffic schedule - Sanction - Need for coordination between Coal Controller and
General Managers.
HEADNOTE:
The Ministry of Railways exercising powers
under section 27A of the Railways Act issued a Preferential Traffic Schedule.
This Schedule prescribed five priorities i.e. priorities 'A' to 'E' with
inter-se priority amongst 'A' to 'E' to be accorded by the railways for
transport of certain goods or class of goods specified under each category.
Different kinds of coal fell under priority 'C' (iii) which provides for
movement of coal from collieries in accordance with programme and movements
sponsored or recommended by the Coal Controller or the State Government
Director, (Movement) Railways.
In Viklad Coal Merchant, Patiala v. U.O.I.
[1984] 1 S.C.R. 657, the Supreme Court held that (i) section 27 of the Indian
Railways Act casts a duty on the Railway Administration to arrange for
receiving and forwarding traffic without unreasonable delay and without
partiality;
(ii) Section 28 prohibited the railway
administration from giving undue or unreasonable preference or advantage to any
particular person or railway administration; (iii) Section 27A gave power to
the Central Government to issue directions for giving special facilities or
preferential treatment in transport of goods or class of goods consigned to the
Central Government or the Government of any State; (iv) in order to be eligible
for obtaining allotment of wagon under priority 'C' it is necessary for the
person indent in the wagon to satisfy the five conditions specified therein,
namely (a) that the coal is to be loaded from the collieries; (b) that the coal
to be loaded is in conformity with the commodity quotas laid down from time to
time for certain types of coal and or in accordance with the programme and movements
sponsored or recommended by the Coal Controller and/or any Committee appointed
by him; (c) or it is sponsored or recommended by the State 881 Government
and/or other recommending authorities and accepted by the Railway
Administrations; (d) or it is sponsored or recommended by Director, Movement
(Railways) Calcutta; and (e) it must be in accordance with the Zonal Scheme
applicable to each field and the principles of transport rationalisation in
force from time to time, and that stoppage at way-side stations for the booking
of coal in wagons could not be described as violative of section 28 of the Act
or indicated unreasonable restrictions.
The railways had been allotting wagons and
rakes to its sponsored traders even after the judgment of the Supreme Court in
Viklad's case in priority 'C' when loaded from various stations nominated for
coal loading on N.F.
Railways. For movement of Khasi Coal there is
no station at colliery siding. As such the coal loaded from the stations
nominated for coal loading on N.F. Railway had been taken as coal loaded from
collieries. One party M/s Mangalam Enterprises - the respondent to the S.L.P.
as well as to the writ petition filed a petition before the Gauhati High Court
against the registration of indents on the basis of the priorities granted by
Calcutta High Court. The High Court allowed they Civil Rule and directed the
Railways to allot wagons in priority 'C' to the sponsored traders only when
they fulfil the five conditions set out in Viklad Coal Merchants, case and that
otherwise the registration would be made under 'E' priority and allotment of
wagon rakes shall strictly be according to the seniority of indents at the
booking station as per rule 201 of the Goods Traffic. It further directed that
all existing indents registered under item 'C' for the parties not fulfilling
all the five conditions were to be covered in 'E'.
Pursuant to the aforesaid order the Railways
had been permitting loading of coal by those having sponsorship certificates
under item 'E' even though the indents might have been registered under item
'C'. Hence these petitions to the Supreme Court.
It was contended before the Supreme Court
that (1) those sponsorers who had to load coal from stations which are not
collieries should not be given priorities in priority 'C' and, (2) the
Preferential Traffic Schedule enjoins that the movement of Traffic Schedule
should be controlled by Controller of Movements and not by the general Managers
of Regional Railways and that this was not canalised by the Controller of
Movements.
Disposing of the writ petition and the
special leave petitions, 882 ^
HELD : 1. It is true that the railways have
permitted movement of coal from nominated railway stations which are not at all
collieries. This had to be done in the interest of equitable distribution of
coal in the whole country.
Otherwise, the State of Meghalaya which had
no railway stations at the colliery sidings will not be able to transport any
coal for the need of Punjab or the North. If there is coal in Meghalaya and
there is need in Punjab and the North then the scheme should be so read that
even the nominated stations in Assam, nominated by high authorities of
railways, should be treated for the purpose of the scheme as colliery sidings
for Khasi coal in those areas. This, the Railways did prior to the order of the
High Court. This was proper interpretation of the judgment of the Supreme Court
in Viklad's case, and this should be adhered to. [890 G-H;
891 A-B] 2. The area of Meghalaya falls
within the Assam Fields.
The list of zonal rationalisation of movement
of coal from different coal fields suggests that such zonal rationalisation
must be controlled by Central Authorities and not by General Managers of
different Railways. The movement of such coal must be such that it should be
coordinated by the Central Authorities like the Coal Controller and cannot be
done haphazardly by the General Managers of the different regions. In future,
movement of coal should be sanctioned by the Zonal Managers of Railways with
the prior consultation and concurrence of the Coal Controller. This can be
achieved quickly if intimation of the same is sent to the Controller and no
objection is received immediately, it will be deemed to have been sanctioned.
In the instant cases, where requisitions have
already been issued and sanctioned with the knowledge of the Controller of Coal
then there has been sufficient compliance. [892 A-F] 3(i) The stations
nominated by the railway in Assam and Meghalaya Zones should be treated as stations
at colliery sidings in terms of the directions given in Viklad's case.
3(ii) the allotment of wagons made by the
Zonal Managers should be adhered to so far as these have already been made and
coal should be loaded but in future Zonal Manager should follow the procedure
in making allotments as indicated herein.
3(iii) in cases where the General Managers
sanction movements of coal, immediate intimation should be given to the
controller of Movements and vice versa. These two authorities must act in
harmony, and in consultation. [892 G-H; 893 A] 883
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave
Petition (Civil) Nos. 632 & 3386 of 1985.
From the Judgment and Order dated 11.12.1984
of the Assam Nagaland, Meghalaya, Manipur and Tripura High Court in Civil Rule
No. 619 of 1984.
WITH Writ Petition (Civil) No. 43 of 1985.
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of
India.) S.C. Gupta, and K.K. Mohan for the Petitioners.
Govind Das, N.R. Chowdhary, O.P. Sharma, Anil
Katyar, R.N. Poddar and C.V. Subba Rao for the Respondents.
Soumen Ghose and N.R. Choudhary for the
Intervener in W.P. No. 43 of 1985.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J. Special Leave Petition Nos. 632 and 3386 of 1985 by M/s
Bansal & Co. and M/s Orient Distributors respectively and the Writ Petition
No. 43 of 1985 by M/s Bansal & Co. under article 32 of the Constitution
challenge the validity of the order issued by the North East Frontier Railway
dated 21st December, 1984 whereby the said railways sought to implement the
judgment and order of the High Court of Gauhati in Civil Rule No. 619 of 1984.
By the said order, it was held that M/s Vicky
Coal Concern, Calcutta as well as M/s Mangalam Enterprises were entitled to
priority 'E' and not to priority 'C'. None of the parties, it was declared by
the Gauhati High Court by its order passed on 11th December, 1984, fulfilled
the requisite conditions for obtaining priority 'C' of the Preferential Traffic
Schedule of the Railways (for short PTS). It was declared also that there could
not be any discrimination whatsoever between any trader and consumer whether
privately sponsored trader or private consumer in priority 'E' and that they
should be allotted and supplied wagons strictly in terms of the provision of
Rule 201 of the Goods Traffic Rules (for short 'the rules') for acceptance,
carriage and delivery of general goods issued by Indian Railways from time to
time, and in order to get priority 'C', they had to 884 fulfil the five
conditions enjoined in the decision of the Court in Viklad Coal Merchant,
Patiala, Etc. v. Union of India & Ors., [1984] 1 S.C.R. 657.
In order to appreciate the position, it is
necessary to state that there is in existence a rationalisation scheme for
movement of coal, booking of coal is allowed from North- Eastern Railways to
difficult States only when the cam is sponsored by the respective State
Government. However, coal is allowed to move freely upto the stations on east
of Siliguri as per said Rationalisation Scheme.
From 1980 onwards certain High Courts had
granted injunction orders on railways to allow booking of coals to various
State in priority 'B' and 'C' without sponsoring certificates. The Railways had
tried to comply with those interim orders although in certain cases, courts
were moved by the Railways for vacation of the interim orders. Movement of coal
to various states took place under priority 'B' and 'C' during the pendency of
such interim orders.
In Viklad Coal Merchant, Patiala Etc. Etc. v.
Union of India & Ors. (supra), the question was considered by this Court.
In that case, the petitions in group of petitions under article 32 of the
Constitution were coal merchants who, according to them, had been denied the
use of railways for transport of coal from various coal fields and way-side
station to their destination by certain orders of the railways which were
described as illegal and unconstitutional by those petitions. The court
examined these contentions and came to the conclusion that section 27 of the
Indian Railways Act cast a duty on the railway administration to arrange for
receiving and forwarding traffic without unreasonable delay and without
partiality.
Section 28 of the said Act prohibited the
railway administration from giving undue or unreasonable preference or
advantage to any particular person or railway administration or any particular
description of traffic.
Section 27A was inserted in the Act after
1950 to given power to the Central Government to issue directions for giving
special facilities or preferential treatment in transport of goods or class of
goods consigned to the Central Government or the Government of any State or of
in such other goods or class of goods as may be specified in the order.
The Government of India, Ministry of Railways
issued an order dated 1st April, 1972 containing its decision to add
abbreviation 'GX' below the abbreviation 'G' in the list of 885 abbreviation at
page 14, Chapter VI of the IRCA Alphabetical list of Railway Stations in India
and asking the railway administration to decide and notify the names of
stations to which this new provision would apply. Putting abbreviation 'GX'
against a station meant that the station was not open for outward booking of
coal, coal shale etc. in wagon loads.
Pursuant to this order, the abbreviation 'GX'
was appended to all way-side stations in the coal-belt. Thereafter Government
of India, Ministry of Railways by its order dated 27th April, 1972 revised
Rules 1 and 2 of the Eastern Railway Coal Traffic Part I. The revised rules
provided, inter alia, that all traffic in coal etc. in wagon loads will be
loaded only from colliery sidings, coke oven plants and washeries on the
Eastern Railway, but coal in wagon would not be permitted at the stations
serving these colliery washeries.
In exercise of the powers conferred under
section 27A of the Railways Act, the Union of India, Ministry of Railways
issued a Preferential Traffic Schedule. This schedule prescribed five
priorities i.e. priorities 'A' to 'E' with inter se priorities amongst 'A' to
'E' to be accorded by the railways for transport of certain goods or class of
goods specified under each category. Different kinds of coal falls under
priority 'C' (iii) which provides for movement of coal from collieries in
accordance with programmes and movements sponsored or recommended by the Coal
Controller and/or any Committee appointed by him and/or the State Government
and/or other recommending authorities and accepted by the Railways
Administrations and/or Director, Movement (Railways), Calcutta, and in accordance
with the Zonal Scheme applicable to each field and the principles of transport
rationalisation in force from time to time. Priority 'E' is a residuary clause
and also involves movement of coal from collieries.
As contended by M/s Bansal & Co., certain
conditions had to be fulfilled for getting priority 'C' (iii) in accordance
with the interpretation put by this Court in the aforesaid decision in Viklad
Coal Merchant's case, it is necessary to set out priority 'C' (iii) as appears
in the Preferential Traffic Schedule which is as follows:
"(iii) Coal from collieries in
accordance with commodity quotas laid down from time to time for certain types
of coal and/or in accordance with programmes and movements sponsored or
recommended by the Coal Controller and/or any Committee appointed by 886 him
and/or the State Governments and/or other recommending authorities and accepted
by the Railways Administrations and/or Director, Movement (Railways), Calcutta,
and in accordance with the Zonal Scheme applicable to each field and the
principles of transport rationalisation in force from time to time. A list of
sponsoring authorities authorised to sponsor coal movements in this item is
given in Annexure 'B'.
(b) Besides the sponsoring authorities
mentioned in Annexure 'B' movement of Coal may be sponsored by "any other
authority who may be appointed by the Government from time to time".
(c) Recommendation for allotment of wagons by
a sponsoring authority or acceptance of recommendations or issue of sanction by
the Railway Administration/Director Movement (Railways) does not guarantee
allotment/supply of wagons. Allotment/supply of wagons would be regulated
according to operational exigencies from time to time. Allotment/supplies of
wagons may be cancelled or reduced by Director, Movement (Railways).
(d) The period of validity of
programmes/sanctions for rakes/piecemeal movement may be laid down from time to
time by Railway Administration/Director, Movement (Railways). The validity of
programme/sanction does not guarantee allotment/supply of wagons.
(e) Inter se seniority of the class of
consumers would be laid down from time to time by Railway Administration
Director, Movement (Railways) and may be altered/modified from time to time.
Within the same class or category of consumers seniority may be fixed from time
to time depending upon the operational and other considerations. Railway
Administration/Director Movement (Railways) may permit distress
allotments/supply of wagons when considered necessary. Nothing laid down herein
shall be considered as contrary to notes (a) to (b) appearing under Priority
'E'." Annexure B mentions the State Collieries - about 27 in number who
are sponsoring authorities to sponsor coal movements.
In Viklad Coal Merchant's case, the
petitioners therein who were coal merchants alleged that sum total of various
887 restrictions including one dated 1st April, 1972 introducing abbreviation
'GX' and the Preferential Traffic Schedule specifying priorities under section
27A(1) of the Act in their cumulative effect imposed a total ban on transport
of coal by the railways at the instance and their action was violative of
articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
Other contentions were also raised.
Discussing the need for the controlling movement of coal and desirability of
channalising coal for public sector by sponsoring agencies and accepting that
railways was subject to constitutional check on the monopoly, the court came to
the conclusion that instructions issued under section 27A were neither violative
of the Act nor the provisions of the Act. i.e. section 28 and 27A violative of
articles 14 or 19 of the Constitution.
It was emphasised that a developing country
with mixed economy and economic planning had certain targets to achieve. These
targets were planned in advance and the economic activity was geared to the
achievement of these targets. If the required resources necessary for achieving
the targets were readily available, no difficulty would arise. But a developing
country had to so distribute its scarce resources to achieve and accomplish
desired targets.
This situation is bound to lead to a gap
between demand and supply or various facilities. Transport was one of such.
Once there was a gap between the demand for
transport service offered by the railway and the supply of the service, the
resources being not sufficient to meet with all existing demands, the scarce
resources would have to be equitably distributed keeping in view the planned
target.
The equitable distribution would necessarily
necessitate imposing of reasonable restrictions and according of priorities.
Then this Court analysed the Preferential Traffic Schedule of the list of
sponsoring authorities and came to the conclusion that the list indicated that
the Central and State Governments as well as highly placed Central and State
Government officers had been appointed as sponsoring authorities in respect of
coal required by different area and industries. This Court therefore rejected
the contention that the setting up of recommending authorities in priority 'C'
ultra vires section 27A of the Act. This Court observed that transport of coal
is according to a plan drawn up a year in advance. Further this plan was
subject to the decision of the Standing Linkage Committee.
Every meticulous detail was worked out in
advance. A daily loading of maximum number of wagons was pre-planned. All the
steps indicated therein were arranged including the abbreviation 'GX' in
effective implementation of plan movement of coal. Therefore stoppage at way-side
station of the booking of coal in wagons could not be described as violative of
section 28 of the Act or indicated unreasonable restrictions violative of
article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
888 Dealing with the Preferential Traffic
Schedule, this Court dealt with different priorities and analysing priority 'C'
which gave the movement of coal to sponsored dealers priority, this Court
observed at pages 677-678 of the report as follows:
"Priority 'C' (iii) which deals with
coal provides for transport of coal from collieries to various parts in India.
It was subjected to varying constructions. It has been extracted earlier. In
order to be eligible for obtaining allotment of wagon under Priority 'C', it is
necessary for the person indenting the wagon to satisfy the various conditions
specified therein. They are: (i) that the coal is to be loaded from the
collieries; (ii) that the coal to be loaded is in conformity with the commodity
quotas laid down from time to time for certain types of coal and/or in accordance
with the programmes and movements sponsored or recommended by the Coal
Controller and/or any Committee appointed by him; (iii) or it is sponsored or
recommended by the State Government and/or other recommending authorities and
accepted by the Railways Administrations; (iv) or it is sponsored or
recommended by Director, Movement (Railways), Calcutta; (v) and it must be in
accordance with the Zonal Scheme applicable to each field and the principles of
transport rationalisation in force from time to time. In order to comply with
the pre-conditions for eligibility under Priority 'C', a list of sponsoring
authority authorised to sponsor coal movements is drawn up and is set out in
Annexure 'B' to the Preferential Traffic Schedule. These general conditions are
further subject to Notes A to E. Why such an exhaustive and detailed provision
is made is not difficult to answer? Coal forms 32% of the total transport of
goods handled by the Railways. On an average, more than 10,000 wagons will have
to be allotted daily for transport of coal. Coal being a primary source of
energy used by heavy industries, electricity generating plants, steel plants as
also cooking fuel used in the remotest parts of the country, it is necessary to
handle its transport with scientific precision. Therefore, there is a prior
planning about a year in advance drawn up by the Director, Movement (Railways)
setting out Zonal Scheme of distribution applicable to each coal- field force
from time to time. The purpose underlying 889 setting up of sponsoring and
recommending authorities is to ascertain the needs of various regions of the
country who is their respective regions would be in close and intimate contact
with the consumers of coal both industrial and individual. Even though power
has been conferred on them to sponsor or recommend indenting of wagons of coal
from collieries this network of sponsoring and recommending authorities are
subject to the Zonal Scheme applicable to each coal field and the principles of
transport rationalisation in force from time to time. The nerve centre is the
Director, Movement (Railways) of all the activities connected with transport of
coal. In addition to this the Government has set up a Standing Linkage
Committee in the Department of coal in the Ministry of Energy. This Committee
assesses the link and requirement of particular source of coal. The Committee
keeps in view the requirements of such major industries and establishments
using coal like the Railways, thermal power stations, fertiliser plants, cement
plants, steel plants, textile factories, chemical industries and the like. This
very narration would show that if there is disturbance in regular supply of
coal to this priority sector resulting in their closure, there would be a
ripple effecting various ancillary industries creating a major dislocation in
the national economy and escalating haunted spectre of lay off and
unemployment. That is why planning is undertaken every year in advance and but
for any emergency it is considered inadvisable to disturb the advance Planning
because any such disturbance results in serious dislocation of this primary
source of energy being distributed all over the country keeping in view
national priorities." The first condition indicated in priority 'C' (iii)
is the coal to be loaded from collieries. This is one of the conditions. It has
however been found and it is further stated and admitted by the railways that
the railways had been allotting wagons and rakes to its sponsored traders even
after the judgment of this Court in Viklad's case in priority 'C' when loaded
from various stations nominated for coal loading on N.F. Railways. For movement
of Khasi coal there is no station at colliery siding. As such the coal loaded
from the stations nominated for coal loading on N.F.
Railway had been taken as coal loaded from
collieries. This was not pointed out to the court in Viklad's 890 case. One
party M/s Manglam Enterprises - the respondent to SLP as well as to the Writ
Petition filed a petition before the Gauhati High Court against the
registration of indents on the basis of the priorities granted by other High
Court, namely the Calcutta High Court. The Gauhati High Court passed its order
in the aforesaid Civil Rule set out hereinbefore asking the Railways to allot
wagons in priority 'C' to the sponsored traders only when they fulfilled the
five conditions set out in the judgment of this Court as set out hereinbefore,
otherwise the registration would be made under 'E' priority and allotment of
wagons rakes shall strictly be according to the seniority of indents at the
booking stations as per rule 201 of the Goods Tariff. It was further directed
that all existing indents registered under item 'C' for the parties not
fulfilling all the five conditions were to be covered in 'E'.
In pursuance of this order, the Railways have
been permitting loading of coal by those having sponsorship certificate and
others as per various High Courts orders under item 'E' including M/s Bansal
& Co even though the indents might have been registered under item 'C'.
This has resulted in the present special leave petition as well as the Writ
Petitions.
As mentioned hereinbefore one of the
conditions is that coal should be loaded from collieries and this condition is
not fulfilled in the case of Khasi coal as there is no colliery in Meghalaya
State unless the nominated stations in Assam are treated as colliery sidings
for Khasi coal.
Railways have issued a notification to that
effect.
Two contentions were urged before us that
those sponsorers who had to load coal from stations which are not collieries
should not be given priorities in priority 'C'.
Secondly, the Preferential Traffic Schedule
enjoins that the movement of Traffic Schedule should be controlled by
Controller of Movements and not by the General Managers of the regional
Railways.
So far as the first contention is concerned,
it is true that railways had permitted movement of coal from nominated railway
stations which are not at collieries. This had to be done in the interest of
equitable distribution of coal to the whole country. Otherwise State of
Meghalayas which had no railway stations at the colliery sidings will not be
able to transport any coal for the need of Punjab or North. This would be
improper if there is coal in Meghalaya and there is need in Punjab and North
then the 891 scheme should be so read that even the nominated stations in
Assam, nominated by high authorities of railways, should be treated for the
purpose of the scheme as colliery sidings for Khasi coal in those areas. This Railways
did prior to the order of the Gauhati High Court. This was proper
interpretation of the judgment of this Court keeping in view the rationale of
the said decision and this should be adhered to.
The second contention was that this was not
canalised by the Controller of Movements. It is true that the Controller of
Movements who had been general idea of the scheme would know all of the
movements. But this is a sponsored coal and General Managers of the Railways
would also know about the movements of coal.
Mr. Ghosh appearing for some of the
respondents submitted that the Preferential Traffic System was supported and
reservation in priority 'C' was sustained subject to the conditions that the
coal must be booked from the collieries and further urged that where in
situations such coal could not be booked from the collieries, there was no
warrant in the decision of this Court in Viklad's case to permit as has been
done in this case loading of coal from nominated stations by railways. We are
unable to sustain the submission made on behalf of the respondents on this
ground.
It is true that this Court in the aforesaid
decision permitted the preferential traffic system on the basis of priority 'C'
and one of the main conditions of priority 'C' was that booking of coal must be
from the collieries. But the situation like the one we have before us is that
in areas having coal fields or having excess quantity of coal available for use
in other parts of the country, having no railway stations in the collieries cannot
supply coal to those places in Punjab and North where coal is required.
This would be contrary to the system of
equitable and reasonable readjustment of rights between the different sectors,
upon the whole basis of which the decision of this Court rested in Viklad's
case, unless the nominated stations, stations nominated by the Railways are
treated as 'railway stations' in collieries in the spirit of Viklad's case. We
read it accordingly. We may further note that there was no allegation that the
power of nomination so far has in any way been misused.
The second objection was and there is some
substance in that, that there is a zonal schedule and principle of controlled
transportation should be borne in mind. In this connection our 892 attention
was drawn to page 177 of Special Leave Petition No. 632 of 1985 indicating the
zonal rationalisation scheme for movement originating from different coal
fields, where item (I) mentions Assam Fields. The area of Meghalaya falls
within the Assam Fields. The list of zonal rationalisation of movement of coal
from different coal fields suggests that such zonal rationalisation must be
controlled by Central authorities and not by General Managers of different
Railways. This was vital for free and equitable distribution and was necessary
for the ceilings for the year 1985 to be observed by sponsoring authorities for
the core sectors by the Central and State sponsoring authorities for non-core
sectors and these were indicated in Annexures 1A, 1B and 1C of the said scheme.
It was further submitted that in Viklad's case at page 668 of the report, this
Court emphasised that coal loading is a matter of huge dimensions and the
Department of Coal, Ministry of Energy had set up a standing linkage committee.
The movement of such coal must be such that it should be coordinated by the
Central authorities like the Coal Controller and cannot be done haphazardly by
the General Managers of the different regions. As indicated before, there is
some substance in this. But if the movements are coordinated and for this the
Controller of Coal as well as General Managers, in case one authority
requisitions wagons and intimates the other, there should be sufficient
compliance. In this case where requisitions have already been issued and
sanctioned with the knowledge of the Controller of Coal (because the procedure
followed postulated that every item was intimated to him and was not objected),
then there has been sufficient compliance. In future movements of coal should
be sanctioned by the Zonal Managers of Railways with the prior consultation and
concurrence of the Coal Controller. This can be achieved quickly if intimation
of the same is sent to the Controller and no objection is received immediately,
it will be deemed to have been sanctioned. So far as these cases are concerned,
the indents for which wagons have been issued and which were cancelled due to
the judgment of the Gauhati High Court should forthwith be rescinded and M/s
Bansal & Co. and other similarly situated like them should be permitted to
load the coal in wagons in pursuance of the wagons issued in their favour. We
order as follows:-
1. that the stations nominated by the
railways in Assam and Meghalaya Zones should be treated as stations at colliery
sidings in terms of the directions given in Viklad's case
2. that the allotment of wagons made by the
Zonal Managers 893 should be adhered to so far as these have already been made
and coal should be loaded but in future Zonal Managers should follow the
procedure in making allotments indicated in this judgment.
3. that in cases where the General Managers
sanction movements of coal, immediate intimation should be given to the
controller of Movements and vice versa. These two authorities must act in
harmony, and in consultation.
4. that except these directions there will be
no order on the Special Leave Petitions as well as no order on the Writ
Petition and these are disposed of accordingly.
Parties will pay and bear their own costs.
M.L.A. Petitions disposed of.
Back
