Dismissed

Syed Muse, v. The Chairman

Telangana HC21 Aug 2009WP/9714/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court directed the petitioner to file a complaint under Section 36 of the Railways Act, 1989 regarding alleged arbitrary tariff revision instead of pursuing this writ petition, as the latter was not the appropriate remedy.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of; liberty to file application under Section 36 of the Railways Act, 1989 within eight weeks; WPMP respondent 12241 of 2001 disposed of as infructuous.

Syed Muse, Vs The Chairman — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

¶4

FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF AUGUST, TWO THOUSAND NINE

¶5

WRIT PETITION No. 9714 of 2001

Between:

Syed Musa

… Petitioner And

The Chairman, Railway Board, New Delhi, & others.

¶10

… Respondents

¶11

Counsel for the petitioner : Sri P.Radhakrishna

¶12

Counsel for the respondents: Sri T.S. Venkataramana

¶13

This Court made the following:

¶14

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.9714 of 2001

¶15

ORDER:-

¶16

This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.1 in revising the IRCA Goods Tariff No.43, Part-I, Vol.II, Chapter-I Page 139 from W/120 to W/130 as minimum weight condition for mangoes when loaded in BCN/BCNA wagons even before the test weighment was conducted by the South Central Railway, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶17

After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing counsel, I am of the view that the petitioner availed a wrong remedy of filing this writ petition because under Section 36 of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short, “the Act”), he is entitled to file a complaint against railway administration inter alia against levying any other charge, which is unreasonable. While the case of the petitioner is that goods tariff No.43 was issued without conducting proper test weighment, as envisaged in circular dated 12.05.1999, it is the case of the respondents – railway administration that such a test was conducted and they also filed a copy of the test weighment data in the writ petition.

¶18

Since the abovementioned disputed facts cannot be adjudicated in this writ petition, it would be more appropriate for the petitioner to avail the remedy, referred to above, under Section

¶19

36 of the Act. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of without going into the merits of the case and with liberty to the petitioner to file appropriate application before the Railway Rates Tribunal (for short, “the Tribunal”) within a period of eight weeks from today. If such an application is filed, the Tribunal shall entertain and dispose of the same on merits without raising any objection on the aspect of limitation.

¶20

As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.12241 of 2001 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous.

¶21

_____________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 21.08.2009 ES

¶22

Note:- Issue C.C. in one week.

Syed Muse, v. The Chairman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Syed Muse, v. The Chairman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s. The Engineering Industries and Manufactures Vs Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation

Sykam Kamalakar Rao Vs Sri v Venkata Panduranga Raju

Syed Ahmed Vs The a.P.I.I.C.Limited, having its registered office

Kum. Bala Nirmala Grace, Vs Sri Sureshchand Ias, Government of Andhra Pradesh

G Gangadas Phoolchand Vs Sri Ss Bhatua

Meenige Lakshmi Reddy S/o Nagi Reddy Vs The District Collector