The Madurai Bench dismissed a writ petition seeking a Writ of Certiorari to quash orders imposing punitive charges for a discrepancy in wagon weight during railway transport.
Writ petition and connected miscellaneous petitions are dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P.(MD)No.8202 of 2013
0BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED :21.12.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. KUMARESH BABU
W.P.(MD)No.8202 of 2013 and M.P.(MD).Nos.1 & 2 of 2013
M/s.Jayakrishna Flour Mill, No.82/3, Maravankulam, Thirumangalam, Madurai-rep by its Managing Director R.K.R.K.Mohan
... Petitioner
Vs.
Chief Goods Supervisor, Kudal Nagar Goods Shed, Southern Railway, Madurai.
... Respondent
PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the proceedings of the respondent vide his proceedings in KON/PC/05/01 dated 06.05.2013 and quash the same as arbitrary and unconstitutional.
Page 1 of 6
W.P.(MD)No.8202 of 2013
For Petitioner :Mr.R.K.Arunjunai For Respondent :Mrs.L.Victoria Gowri (ASGI)
O R D E R
This writ petition has been filed seeking to quash the order of the
respondent dated 06.05.2013, wherein, a demand has been made from the petitioner as there was over weight in the 33 wagons, in which the petitioner had transported raw materials for his company.
2.Mr.R.K.Arunjunai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the allegation of over weight has not been substantiated, since the re-weighing done at Kudal Nagar station was not in the presence of the petitioner. Inspite of the request of the petitioner, immediately on the same day, seeking for re-weighment, the authorities has not re-weighed the goods to substantiate their claim. He would further contend that when the wagons were loaded, they were weighed at Surat and thereafter, the wagons were under the custody of the railways. There could not have been any increase in weight, during the re-weighing, for which the petitioner cannot be held responsible. Therefore, the petitioner sought to quash the order of
Page 2 of 6
W.P.(MD)No.8202 of 2013
demand impugned in this writ petition.
3.Countering his arguments, Mrs.L.Victoria Gowri, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India appearing on behalf of the respondent would submit that when the wagons are weighed at Kudal Nagar Station, there was a over weight in respect of certain wagons, for which, she had produced a tabular column. The said tabular column consists of both the weighment at Surat and also the re-weighment at Kudal Nagar, regarding the Tare weight and also the gross weight. There is no difference in the column of the Tare weight and the only difference seems to be an increase of weight in the gross weight column. Hence, it was found out there was a over weight of 23.30 tones, which attracted a punitive charges of Rs. 2,46,035/-. This charge is made based upon the rate advised in Circular No. 61/2007 for goods in Class 3, wherein the consignee will be liable to pay punitive charges as applicable, if there is an increased difference in the weight of first weighment and in the weight during re-weighment. Therefore, there is no question of re-weighment.
Page 3 of 6
W.P.(MD)No.8202 of 2013
4.I have considered the rival submissions made by the counsel appeared on either side.
5.The petitioner had disputed the over weight charges on the ground that there is no reason as to why, there was an increased weight during the re-weighment process. When the wagons were loaded, the weighment is only done by the railways. In this case, the weighment is carried out by the railways at the loading yard, at Surat, even before loading the wagons. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that it cannot be a fault on the petitioner for the increased weights, for which he could not be held reasonable. The said argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is attractive, but on the other hand, the learned counsel for the petitioner had not placed any materials on record to show as to what was the weight of goods, that was loaded in the wagons. The three invoices issued by the railways both at the loading and unloading stations show difference in weight of the wagons. But the Tare weight of the wagons remains the same. If the petitioner had produced documents to substantiate the weight of goods that were purchased and loaded at Surat then his case
Page 4 of 6
W.P.(MD)No.8202 of 2013
could have been considered. Therefore, I am of the view that the petitioner had not made any substantial ground in challenging the impugned proceedings issued by the respondent.
6.In the light of the aforesaid finding, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition and the same is dismissed. However, no order as to costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
21.12.2022
Ncc :Yes/No Index : Yes / No Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order sbn
To
Chief Goods Supervisor, Kudal Nagar Goods Shed, Southern Railway, Madurai.
Page 5 of 6
W.P.(MD)No.8202 of 2013
K.KUMARESH BABU, J.
sbn
W.P.(MD)No.8202 of 2013 and M.P.(MD).Nos.1 & 2 of 2013
21.12.2022
Page 6 of 6
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner has made any substantial ground to challenge the impugned proceedings imposing demand for overweight charges.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
M/s.Jayakrishna Flour Mill
Chief Goods Supervisor, Kudal Nagar Goods Shed
K. KUMARESH BABU
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
