Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Orissa Metaliks Private Limited & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors on 2 June, 2020
1
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
02-06-2020Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Appellate Side Subrata/Subha W.P.No.5433(W) of 2020 Orissa Metaliks Private Limited & Anr.
-vs-
Union of India & Ors.
with CAN No.3131 of 2020 (via video-conference) Mr. S.K. Kapoor Mr. Meghajit Mukherjee ...for the petitioners Mr. R.N. Bag ...for the railways The petitioners assail a notification dated May 14, 2020.
Learned senior advocate for the petitioners submits that the railway authorities have purported to invoke Rule 201 in issuing the impugned notice. He submits that maximisation of railway earnings cannot be a ground to cancel existing contract with retrospective effect. The avoidance of congestion of particular destination cannot also be a valid reason. He submits that the impugned notice was at the behest of the business rivals of the petitioner no. 1 who is the only person that is being affected by the impugned notice. Therefore, he submits that as an interim measure the existing indents should be allowed to be honoured by the railways so far as the petitioners are concerned. The impugned notice be stayed so far as the petitioners are concerned. He 2 draws the attention of the court to the fact that the railway authorities are without any defence.
The railways are represented by Mr R.N. Bag.
By the notice dated May 14, 2020 the railways have invoked provisions of Rule 201.
Rule 201 is as follows:-
"201. The following rules lay down the procedure for the registration of indents for wagons and of consignment of ""smalls" over the Indian Railways. The Railway Administrations, after due notice, can make such temporary local variations in any of these rules as they consider fit, to meet any exceptional circumstances or to prevent misuse."
Rule 201 allows the railways to alter their stand under the circumstances specified therein.
In the impugned notice, apart from maximisation of railway earnings and avoidance of congestion to a particular destination, the railways have taken the plea of COVID-19 to change their earlier stand. Prima facie, it cannot be said that the railways have acted beyond jurisdiction or authority to pass any interim order as prayed for by the petitioners. Moreover, the COVID-19 pandemic situation is not yet over in the country.
In the facts of the present case, it would be appropriate to permit the parties to file their respective affidavits.
Let the affidavit-in-opposition be filed within 3 four weeks; reply, if any, be filed within two weeks thereafter.
The writ petition will be treated as ready for hearing immediately on completion of the time stipulated for filing affidavits.
[Debangsu Basak, J]