Laxmi Narayn Prasad Singh vs M/S.Tata Iron & Steel Co.Ltd. on 13 July, 2012

[Cites 1, Cited by 1]

Jharkhand High Court

Laxmi Narayn Prasad Singh vs M/S.Tata Iron & Steel Co.Ltd. on 13 July, 2012

Bench: Aparesh Kumar Singh

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                    W. P. (C) No. 3377 of 2006
      B.N.Brothers, a proprietorship Firm..............            ..Petitioner
                                        Versus
      The Union of India & others                            ...... Respondents
                                        
      CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH
                                        
      For the Petitioner                  : Mr. A.K.Das, Adv
      For the Respondents                 : None.
                                        

03/13.07.2012

No one appears on behalf of the learned counsel for the respondents. However, learned counsel for the petitioner is present.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was entitled for refund of excess amount charged by the Indian Railways for carrying on freight from Brunco Sdg. to Harthala in Rajasthan for the periods mentioned in paragraph no. 4 of the writ petition ranging from October, 1995 to April, 1995, of which the petitioner had made his claim on 9th February, 1996 as the petitioner had been charged the freight for a distance of 1132 kilometers whereas a distance between two stations is 1093 kilometers only. However, his claim application was considered and only two claims of refund were allowed, rest of the claims of refund for item no. 3 to 7 has been refused as the petitioner had filed the claim application after expiry of prescribed time of six months as per section 106 (3) of the Indian Railway Act, 1989. The petitioner was paid the refund of excess amount of two items by Annexure3 dated 24.1.2003 wherefrom, it is apparent that the respondents though have not disputed the factum of distance between two stations for which the refund has been made but the rest of the refunds have been refused simply on account of fact that it was made after six months although the petitioner had made his claim for all the refunds in one application filed in February, 1996. It is submitted on the part of the petitioner that the claim of the petitioner has further been refused on a representation/appeal before the Coal Area Manager by Annexure5 dated 23.6.2003. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in AIR (2008) 5 SCC 632 in the case of Rajasthan State Electricity BoardVs. Union of India & others, in support of his contention that when the question of distance has not been disputed the claim for refund should not have rejected on that count.

However, earlier by order dated 16.10.2006, time was granted to respondents to seek instructions and file counter affidavit, but the same is not on record.

However, one more opportunity is given to the learned counsel for the respondents, the case is adjourned for three weeks to enable them to file counter affidavit.

List this case after three week.

(Aparesh Kumar Singh,J) jk

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Jharkhand High Court