Calcutta High Court
Rashmi Metaliks Limittd & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors on 2 February, 2009
Author: Jayanta Kumar Biswas
Bench: Jayanta Kumar Biswas
1
WP No. 65 of 2009
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
ORIGINAL SIDE
RASHMI METALIKS LIMITTD & ANR. .. Petitioners
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .. Respondents
For the petitioners: Mr.K.K.Bandyopadbyay, Sr.Adv. For the respondents: Mr.Jayanta Banerjee, Adv.
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE JAYANTA KUMAR BISWAS Date : 2nd February, 2009.
The Court : The petitioners in this writ petition are questioning the demand made by the Traffic Inspector (Com), Paradip Port Trust (Rly) by his notice dated September 12, 2008, at page 28. They are also alleging that the authorities of the South Eastern Railway, Kharagpur have refused to accept their indents for new rakes until the punitive charges demanded by the notice dated September 12, 2008 are paid.
In so far as the notice dated September 12, 2008 is concerned, I am of the view that this court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition. Notice demanding the amount mentioned therein has been issued by Traffic Inspector (Com), Paradip Port Trust (Rly) whose office is admittedly located outside the limits of territorial jurisdiction of this court. Office of the authority is located in the State of Orissa. There is no reason to hold that any part of the cause of action connected with the demand has arisen within the jurisdiction of this court.
The cause of action with respect to the issue mentioned in para.9 is, however, a distinctly separate one, and this has arisen within the jurisdiction of this court. Hence, though with respect to the cause of action connected with the issue stated in para.9 the petitioners are entitled to approach this court, in my opinion, they are not entitled to join in the same writ petition the cause of action connected with the demand notice dated 2 September 12, 2008 issued by the Traffic Inspector (Com), Paradip Port Trust (Rly).
As to the issue arising out of the allegations made in para.9, I find that the railway authority has not given any decision that the railway will not accept any indent placed by the petitioners for new rakes. The punitive charges demanded by the notice have not been demanded by them. Under the circumstances, I think it will be appropriate to dispose of the writ petition making appropriate order with respect to the demand notice dated September 12, 2008 and giving necessary direction with respect to the issue arising out of the facts stated in para.9.
For these reasons, I dispose of the writ petition ordering as follows. As to the demand notice dated September 12, 2008, this writ petition is dismissed for lack of territorial jurisdiction, making it clear that nothing herein shall prevent the petitioners from approaching the appropriate forum or court by initiating appropriate proceedings seeking necessary reliefs against the demand notice. With respect to the issue arising out of the case made out in para.9, I give liberty to the petitioners to submit appropriate application to the authority concerned requesting the South Eastern Railway, Kharagpur to accept indents placed by them for new rakes. If such an application is made, then the authority concerned shall give appropriate reasoned decision dealing with all questions connected with placement of indents for new rakes, and such decision shall be given after giving the petitioners a reasonable opportunity of hearing, and within five working days from the date of receipt of the application. The reasoned decision shall be communicated to the first petitioner at once. There shall be no order for costs.
All parties concerned are to act on a signed xerox of this order on the usual undertakings.
(JAYANTA KUMAR BISWAS, J.) km