Jharkhand High Court
Md. Parwez Ansari @ Md. Perwez vs The Divisional Manager (Coal Comml.) on 25 June, 2024
Author: Rajesh Shankar
Bench: Rajesh Shankar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (C) No.2646 of 2020
-----
Md. Parwez Ansari @ Md. Perwez .......... Petitioner.
-Versus-
1. The Divisional Manager (Coal Comml.), East Central Railway, Dhanbad.
2. Coal Area Manager, East Central Railway, Dhanbad.
3. The Circle Mandal (Coal Comml.), East Central Railway, Dhanbad.
4. The Station Manager, Chainpur Railway Station, Rail Circle, Dhanbad, East Central Railway, Ramgarh.
5. Divisional Railway Manager (Coal), East Central Railway, Dhanbad.
6. Divisional Engineer-3, Dhanbad.
7. P.W.I. Gomia, Eastern Central Railway, Dhanbad.
.......... Respondents.
-----
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
-----
For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Sunil Kumar, Advocate
-----
Order No.08 Date: 25.06.2024
I.A. No.5817 of 2021:
1. The present interlocutory application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner for early hearing of the writ petition.
2. Since the writ petition itself has taken upon the board, there is no need to pass any order in the present interlocutory application.
3. I.A. No.5817 of 2021 is disposed of.
W.P. (C) No.2646 of 2020:
4. Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned counsel for the petitioner, while referring to I.A. No.4653 of 2024 (amendment application), confines the prayer for issuance of direction upon the competent authority of East Central Railway i.e. respondent no.5 to take a decision on the petitioner's claim for refund of Rs.21,50,000/- being price of balance 70% of the coal along with suitable interest. In support of the said claim, learned counsel for the petitioner refers to paragraph no.8 of the present interlocutory application, which reads as under:
"8. That in view of such factual backgrounds and dispute purportedly raised in the counter affidavit as well as in the reply to the rejoinder clearly indicate that the respondents while extending the time of lifting several cases and also extending the time in the case of the petitioner in respect of another work order in Dania by realizing warpage charges had taken an erogenous and inconsistent stand and in this view of matter the petitioner begs to file this amendment petition with the following proposed amendment;
1) In para 2 railway track the following may be added:
"And in the alternative the respondents may be directed to pay and refund Rs.21,50,000/- being price of balance 70% of coal with interest at the rate of 18% per annum till realization.
2) In between para 26 and 27 of the writ petition at page 23 the following new para may be added:-
"26A. That, in view of the provisions contained in para 2236 of commercial manual, the respondents can extend the time realizing warpage charges as has been done in the case of the petition a different work order in Dania in District of Bokaro."
3) This provision has been quoted para 5.4.1 of joint procedure order (Annexure R/B).
"26B. That, the respondents failed to bring on record to justify their stand in granting such extension in series of cases and any document with banning such extensions which clearly attracts article 14 of the Constitution of India."
4) In prayer portion and at page 27 after the words railways track the following may be added:-
"And in the alternative as to why the respondent shall not be directed to refund Rs.21,00,000/- being price of 70% balance coal with interest at the rate 18% per annum the date of order till realization."-2-
5. As against this, Mr. Sunil Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, while referring to paragraph no.12 of the reply affidavit dated 7th June, 2024, submits that auction in "Dania" was conducted as per the provisions of the Circular of Eastern Railway Headquarter dated 6th January, 1993, which is not applicable to this case, as the present one is being dealt with as per guidelines issued by Headquarter/East Central Railway/Hajipur dated 30th October, 2015.
6. Be that as it may.
7. Since the petitioner has confined the prayer made in the writ petition to the extent of seeking refund of Rs.21,50,000/- being the price of balance 70% of coal, he is given liberty to prefer a fresh representation on this issue before the respondent no.5. On receipt of the same, the respondent no.5, after calling for the relevant records and on making due inquiry, if so required, as well as after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner/ his representative, shall take an appropriate informed decision within four weeks from the date of filing of the representation.
8. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of with the aforesaid liberty and direction.
9. I.A. No.4653 of 2024 also stands disposed of.
(Rajesh Shankar, J.) Vikas -3-