Allahabad High Court
Kalpataru Agro Forest Enterprises (P) ... vs Union Of India Thru Secy. Railway Board & ... on 20 April, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 ALL 769
Author: Sudhir Agarwal
Bench: Sudhir Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH Reserved on 20.02.2020. Delivered on 20.04.2020. A.F.R. Case :- MISC. BENCH No. - 1892 of 2007 Petitioner :- Kalpataru Agro Forest Enterprises (P) Ltd. Respondent :- Union Of India and others Counsel for Petitioner :- Jai Kumar Srivastava,Om Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- Manik Sinha,Amita Srivastava,Anand Dwivedi,Neerav Chitravanshi Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.
Hon'ble Virendra Kumar-II,J.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Virendra Kumar-II, J.)
1. Heard Shri Jai Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for petitioner. None has appeared for respondents.
2. The petitioner has instituted present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for seeking following reliefs:
i) To issue a Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the arbitrary orders dated 22.08.2006 (Annexure No.7), 15.09.2006 (Annexure No.10), 21.09.2006 (Annexure No.19), 27.10.2006 (Annexure No.16), and 17.11.2006 (Annexure No.17) passed by the opposite parties No. 4, 7 and 9 as contained in Annexures to this writ petition and also the clarification letter No.TCR/1078/2006/4 dated 27.10.2006 of opposite party No. 1 as contained in (Annexure No.20) to this writ petition.
ii) To issue a Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite parties to allow the freight discounts and its consequential benefits retrospectively i.e. from the date of making the proposal as contained in Annexure Nos.2 to 6 with the writ petition in accordance with the Railway circular dated 22.03.2006.
iii) To issue any other Order or Orders which are deemed just and appropriate in the nature and circumstances of the case in favour of the petitioner against the opposite parties.
(iv) To allow the cost of the writ petition in favour of the petitioner against the opposite parties.
3. It is pleaded in the writ petition that on the basis of Freight Incentive Scheme circulated vide Cirular No. 25 of 2006 and Corrigendum vide Circular No. 31 of 2006, letter dated 28.03.2006 of Railway Board which has been annexed as Annexure No. 1(a) & (b), the Railway Board, Ministry of Railways has superseded the existing station-to-station rate schemes, Freight Forwarder Scheme, Premier Customer Scheme and Train Load Benefit Scheme vide rate Circular No. 25 of 2006 and formulated the comprehensive freight scheme mentioned in para-6 of the petition.
4. The petitioner has further pleaded that he is eligible to avail the benefit of Incentive Scheme for Traditional Empty Flow Direction, which is described under para 4-A-3 of the Scheme. The spirit of the scheme of empty flow direction is that in a particular direction railway needs wagons. To fulfill this requirement of wagons in that railway, the railway system sends the empty wagons from different zones by hauling empty wagons/ empty rakes. Giving such discounts in freight on traditional empty flow directions, is much more profitable to the railways compared to hauling empty rakes/ wagons.
5. It is further mentioned in the grounds of petition that petitioner submitted proposal through applications/ letters dated 05.05.2006, 20.05.2006 and 31.05.2006 respectively, before the opposite parties No. 7, 8 and 9 for grant of benefit of freight discount as prescribed under the said scheme. The petitioner had chosen two terminals/ stations viz., Raibareli and Mohanlalganj in the Lucknow Division of Northern Railways and three stations/ terminals viz., Hardoi, Roza and Beniganj in the Moradabad Division of Northern Railways and one terminal/ station viz., Parsendi in Lucknow Division of Northern Railway for loading and carriage of timber wastes/ bamboo cuts for Ukal Songadh ( a station on Western Railway).
6. It is further pleaded that in sub paras (6) and (9) of para-3 of Railway Board's letter dated 28.03.2006 it has been mentioned that Divisional Railway Manager will issue an authorization letter to the Goods Supervisor of the concerned terminals/ stations for maintaining necessary records and granting admissible freight discount or issue a regret letter outlining the reasons of rejection to the customer and the Goods Supervisor of the concerned terminals/ stations, not later than 15 days, after receipt of the proposal from the customer. The opposite parties have neither issued any authorization letter to the Goods Supervisors concerned, nor issued any regret letter to the customer, i.e., petitioner.
7. It is further pleaded by the petitioner that the petitioner awaited for a reasonable time and on having no response, the petitioner again sent a reminder dated 11.07.2006 to the opposite party No. 7 apprising the loading position of rake consignments of timber waste/ bamboo cuts booked from Mohanlalganj and Raibareli stations to Ukai Songadh and freight paid thereon with request to adjust the freight discount already towards freight, which will accrue as due in future after loading of further consignments. The petitioner also wrote a letter 05.07.2006 to the Chief Commercial Manager, Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi, claiming adjustment of freight discount already due retrospectively with the freight of subsequent railway receipts, which will be issued in future. The petitioner was informed vide letter dated 22.08.2006 that 15% concession on the timber wastes, when loaded in covered wagons viz. BCN/BCNA/BCNAHS/BCX wagons is already applicable to the petitioner, therefore, two concessions cannot be allowed simultaneously.
8. The petitioner vide letter dated 04.09.2006 clarified to the opposite party that 15% concession was not in fact a concession, but it is a sort of normal freight rate for the timber waste which is altogether different from the freight discount envisaged under the Freight Incentive Scheme of the Traditional Empty Flow Direction. The petitioner in reply to the query dated 06.07.2006 apprised to the Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, Norther Railway, Lucknow about the true position about the loading of traffic and requested to adjust freight discount. The opposite party No. 7 after a lapse of two months without applying mind communicated its decision vide letter dated 15.09.2006 in the manner as opposite party No. 4 had communicated vide letter dated 22.08.2006.
9. It is further pleaded by the petitioner that the decision dated 22.08.2006 and 15.09.2006 are illegal, arbitrary, misconceived, unlawful and against the spirit of scheme in question.
10. It is further contended that 15% concession on the timber waste, when loaded in covered wagons, is the normal tariff rate which has been allowed by the Government of India, Ministry of Railways, Railway Board, after considering the lesser load ability of the timber waste, when loaded in the above mentioned wagons. It was allowed vide Circular No. 70 of 2005 dated 02.12.2005 effective from 05.12.2005.
11. The petitioner has mentioned in grounds of petition that he sent representations dated 14.09.2006, 25.09.2006, 26.10.2006 and 15.11.2006 to the opposite parties, but the opposite parties did not pay any heed to material facts involved and issued reply on 27.10.2006 and 17.11.2006. It is further contended that petitioner had submitted similar proposal to D.R.M., North Eastern Railway, Lucknow, opposite party No. 9, on 31.05.2009 for grant of benefit of freight discount under the Incentive Scheme for Traditional Empty Flow Direction from Parsendi station. The proposal was processed by D.R.M., North Eastern Railway, Lucknow and issued the authorization letter dated 13.09.2006 to Station Master, Parsendi.
12. The petitioner has also relied upon para-2(16) of Freight Incentive Scheme regarding definition of freight concession, "that this is a generic term indicating charging at rate lower than the normal tariff rate without being specific about it being a discount or rebate". The petitioner has also relied upon definition of freight discount and freight rebate defined under para 2(17) and 2(19) of rate circular No. 25 of 2006 and contended that on perusal of aforesaid definitions it is crystal clear that freight concession and freight discount/ freight rebate have different objects altogether. It is also relied upon by the petitioner that nowhere in the scheme it has been mentioned that two concessions cannot be allowed simultaneously.
13. In para-20 of the writ petition the petitioner has quoted rate circular No. 17 of 2005 dated 23.03.2005 and pleaded that timber waste commodity which had separate classification and weight condition has been brought under the Main Commodity head 'timber' with effect from 01.04.2005, in which the wight condition of the waste timber has been enhanced to carrying capacity of the wagons. The Ministry of Railways, Railway Board considered its genuineness and granted 15% concession in freight rate for timber waste when loaded in covered wagons through rate circular No. 70 of 2005 dated 02.12.2005.
14. It is also pleaded that factually 15% concession in freight rate is the part of the normal freight rate and not a concession, but normally it is being understood as the concession in the business parlance. It is further pleaded by the petitioner that North Eastern Railway has granted two concessions concurrently, (i) 6% for traffic for North Eastern Region and (ii) further 15% for station concession to increase traffic. Both these concessions have been granted concurrently by North Eastern Railway.
15. It is also mentioned in the grounds of petition that the decision dated 22.08.2006, 15.09.2006, 27.10.2006 and 27.11.2006 of opposite parties are cryptic, incomplete, vague and ambiguous. The subsequent order through letter dated 21.09.2006 is illegal, vague and against the natural justice. The clarification issued by the Railway Board under letter dated 27.10.2006 is misconceived, misconstrued, misinterpreted and violated version of rate circular No. 25 of 2006. The petitioner has been deprived of the scheme of availing the eligible concession. As per the terms and conditions of the scheme the petitioner is eligible for freight discount from the date of proposal made under the scheme to the opposite parties.
16. On the basis of aforesaid grounds the present petition has been instituted to seek the aforementioned reliefs.
17. Learned counsel for petitioner has put forth his arguments on the basis of grounds narrated in the writ petition.
18. Counter affidavit has been filed by learned counsel for respondents No. 1, 2 and 4 to 8 and it pleaded therein that petitioner has not been deprived of any legal right as contained in circular of Railway Board dated 28.03.2006. The Railway Administration had informed the petitioner that double concession was not possible simultaneously. 15% concession, when loaded in covered wagon was admissible in terms of letter of Railway Board dated 27.10.2006. The petitioner is not eligible to avail benefit of incentive scheme for traditional empty flow direction for the railways. He has been informed vide letter dated 27.10.2006 and 17.11.2006. The petitioner has its personal assessment about how profitable it is to give discount in freight of traditional empty flow direction for the railways which is mentioned in para-8 of the writ petition. The Head Office of Railways communicated the petitioner directly that two concessions cannot be allowed to be availed by the petitioner, the same being policy matter.
19. The opposite parties have specifically pleaded that letter dated letter dated 11.07.2006 was replied by respondent No. 7 on 15.09.2006 (Annexure No. 10). The letter dated 15.07.2006 was replied vide letter dated 22.08.2006 (Annexure No.7 ). It has been categorically replied in the letter dated 22.08.2006 that, "therefore, two concessions cannot be allowed simultaneously as concurrency under Incentive Schemes for Traditional Empty Flow Directions if for Investment Reimbursement Discounts and consignment volume based Scheme only".
20. The opposite parties have contended that there is no illegality in the decision conveyed to petitioner vide letter dated 22.08.2006 and 15.09.2006. The application of petitioner itself was not receivable under the Scheme contained in Annexure No. 1 of the writ petition. The petitioner had no case for being dealt with under the procedure laid down in the Freight Incentive Schemes, policy guidelines dated 28.03.2004, but nevertheless the decision of competent authorities at the highest level of the hierarchy was communicated to the petitioner with regard to his application/ representation.
21. It is further pleaded by the opposite parties that freight concession has been defined being generic term indicating charging at a rate lower than the normal traffic rate without being specific about it being a discount or rebate. Therefore, the contention of para-16 that 15% concession on timber waste when loaded in covered wagon is the normal tariff rate cannot be accepted in view of the definition of freight concession. Therefore, for loading the same timber waste a 15% concession from tariff rate has already been availed. A further concession under the Freight Incentive Schemes dated 28.03.2006 could not be granted.
22. The opposite parties have relied upon the introduction contained in the aforesaid scheme. It is further pleaded that policy of railways, not to allow double concession for loading the same material, is a policy in general and this policy is not circumscribed by any circular issued with regard to grant of Freight Incentive. All incentive schemes including one contained in Annexure No. 1 are subject to the general policy of railways that more than one concession in freight was not admissible for loading the same material at the same point of time.
23. The opposite parties have pleaded regarding contentions of para-19 of the writ petition that as per the definition contained in para 2(16) of freight concession and definition contained in para 2(17) and 2(19) of freight rebate reveals that whether it be freight discount or freight rebate, it is freight concession and nothing. Nonetheless, every discount or rebate, therefore, is concession. It is wrong and misconceived to state that it has not been mentioned in the scheme that two concessions cannot be allowed simultaneously. Paragraph-1 of Introduction makes it clear that in order to opt for new scheme the existing arrangement would have to be forgo. It is clear that Incremental Traffic and Wagon Investment Schemes are, in fact, only one scheme and in order to be eligible for concession under both the schemes, both the schemes are to be opted for together.
24. The opposite parties have also pleaded that petitioner has already availed concession of 15% in respect of a commodity cannot qualify for concession under any other scheme as a policy matter. The petitioner was not eligible to be an applicant under the new scheme, unless he forewent the concession already availed under the Timber Waste Loading under covered Wagon Scheme. It is also denied that North Eastern Railway has granted two concessions concurrently.
25. It is further mentioned in the counter affidavit that no injustice has been done to the petitioner as he is not legally entitled for any claim or concession under the circular dated 28.03.2006. It is also contented that the Railway Board's letter dated 27.10.2006 is perfectly in order and does not violate the rate circular as contained in Annexure No.1 of the petition. The policy of Railway Board as indicated in para-1 of the rate circular No. 25 of 2005 (Annexure No. 1) does not permit grant of two concessions simultaneously and this policy is applicable to all offices working under the Ministry of Railways which has been communicated to the petitioner by Railway Board's letter dated 27.10.2006.
26. It is further pleaded that since petitioner was availing 15% concession in respect of loading timber waste, the very first paragraph of the Rate Circular No. 25 of 2006 rendered him ineligible for any further concession for loading the same material. The progressive policy of the Railways to reduce the Freight Rates for augmenting the volume of goods traffic is not be misread with its policy not to grant two concessions under different schemes for loading the same material at the same point of time.
27. On the basis of aforesaid contentions it is pleaded that writ petition is completely misconceived. The petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.
28. The petitioner has filed rejoinder affidavit and pleaded in its para-18 and 19 that the Government of India through Ministry of Railways (Railway Board) vide its rate circular No. 25 of 2007 dated 13.03.2007 specifically in its introduction provides for super-cession of of the existing freight incentive scheme, which includes the earlier scheme under the rate circular No. 25 of 2006. It is also relied that circular No. 25 of 2007 further provides, concessions on loading of timber in covered wagons in accordance with rate circular No. 70 of 2005 has also been superseded and accordingly instant rate circular No. 25 of 2007 has been circulated. The petitioner has relied upon Annexure No. R.A.-1 of the rejoinder affidavit. The petitioner has reiterated its earlier contentions in rejoinder affidavit, which are mentioned in the grounds of writ petition.
29. We have heard Shri Jai Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for petitioner on 20.02.2020. We have perused the record and proposals dated 05.05.2006, 20.05.2006 and 31.05.2006 (Annexure Nos. 2, 3 & 4 of petition) submitted by petitioner and rate circular No. 25 of 2006, dated 28.03.2006 (Annexure No. 1(1) & (b) of petition).
30. We have also perused decisions dated 22.08.2006, 15.09.2006, 27.10.2006 & 27.11.2006 of opposite parties No. 4 and 7.
31. We have also perused Circular No. 25 of 2006.
32. On perusal of Para-1.0-Introduction mentioned in circular No. 25 of 2006 it is provided as follows:
1.0 Introduction In super session of the existing Station-to-Station Rate Scheme (STS), Freight Forwarder Scheme, Premier Customer Scheme and Trainload benefit Scheme, following comprehensive Freight Incentive Schemes are introduced. Customers already availing freight concessions under Station-to- Station rate Scheme will have the option of continuing with the existing arrangement till completion of the term as per the agreement of the Station-to-Station rate scheme or withdraw from these Schemes and opt for any of the new Incentive Schemes.
33. In Para-2.0(8) concurrency has been defined, which is as follows:
8. Concurrency: It specifies the Incentive Schemes for which the traffic loaded by a rail customer can be concurrently considered.
34. Freight concession and freight discount are defined in Para-2(16) and 2(17) respectively, which are as follows:
16. Freight Concession: This is a generic term indicating charging at a rate lower than the normal tariff rate without being specific about it being a Discount or Rebate.
17. Freight Discount: This refers to an upfront discount on the normal tariff rate at the time of booking of traffic at the terminal.
35. Traditional Empty Flow Directions have been defined in Para-2(33), which is as under:
33. Traditional Empty Flow Directions: These are traffic movement streams comprising predominantly of empty wagons. Railway Board will notify these streams for specific wagon types.
36. Volume Growth Incentive Scheme is mentioned in Para-4.0 and Exclusion are mentioned in Para-4.0(1), which are as under:
4.0 SCHEMES A. Volume Growth Incentive Schemes Following Incentive Schemes are directed at promoting higher volumes of traffic particularly during the Lean Season.
1. Incentive Scheme for Incremental Traffic:
..........
..........
Exclusion: Coal, Coke, Raw Material to Steel Plants, Ores, Minerals and commodities in Classes below Class 120.
37. Other schemes like loyalty scheme, incentive scheme for traditional empty flow direction, long term special incentive schemes, cargo aggregation scheme, consignment volume based scheme, have also been explained and mentioned in Circular No. 25 of 2006.
38. On perusal of provisions of Circular No. 25 of 2006 it is pertinent to mention here that petitioner had to opt the scheme under Circular No. 25 of 2006 and forgo existing arrangement till completion of term as per the agreement of station to station rate scheme or withdraw from these schemes and opt for any of the new incentive scheme. The petitioner has not pleaded that he ever withdrawn from the existing arrangement or scheme under which he was availing 15% concession in freight rate on loading of waste timber in covered wagons. If petitioner really intended to opt the freight incentive scheme prescribed in Circular No. 25 of 2006, then he was obliged to opt the scheme under rate circular No. 25 of 2006.
39. On perusal of pleadings of writ petition it appears that petitioner nowhere has pleaded that he opted freight incentive scheme under Circular No. 25 of 2006, therefore, his proposals were rightly not processed by the Railway Board for giving benefits of freight concession or freight discount under the schemes mentioned in Circular No. 25 of 2006.
40. We have also perused rate Circular No. 25 of 2007 dated 13.03.2007 relied upon by the petitioner and brought on record by means of its rejoinder affidavit. It is provided in Introduction-1.1 and 1.2 as follows:
1.1 Super session: These instructions supersede the existing Freight Incentive Schemes (RC No 25, 31, 44, 62, 64, 70, 74, 77, 98, 100 of 2006 and 1 of 2007), Concession on FCI food grains loaded in BOXN wagons (RC No 09 of 2007), Concession on Chemical Manures loaded in open wagons (RC N0 4 of 2003 and 35 of 2005), Concession on loading of Timber Waste in covered wagons (RC No 70 of 2005), Concession on Cement loaded in open wagons (RC No 4 of 2003, 43 0f 2006 and 111of 2006) and Wagon load classification of commodities loaded on MG and NG system (RC No 5 of 2007). Following comprehensive guidelines for various Freight Incentive Schemes &Transportation Products are introduced.
1.2 Customers already availing freight concessions under the existing Freight Incentive Schemes (such as Long Term Special Incentive Scheme) will have the option of continuing with the existing arrangement till completion of the term as per the agreement entered into between the rail user and Railways under the purview of the existing Freight Incentive Schemes or withdraw from these Schemes and opt for any of the new Incentive Schemes being introduced. Proposal pending finalization on 31st March 2007 under any of the Schemes hereby being superseded will lapse on cessation of validity of the relevant Scheme.
41. The same option was to be exercised by petitioner for availing freight discount by foregoing existing arrangement till completion of term as per the agreement entered into between the rail user and Railways under the purview of existing freight incentive scheme or withdraw from these schemes and opt for any of the new incentive schemes being introduced. Although concessions on loading of timber waste in covered wagons vide Circular No. 70 of 2005 was superseded vide rate Circular No. 25 of 2007 dated 13.03.2007, but the petitioner was obliged to opt the freight incentive scheme on the basis of Circular No. 25 of 2006 dated 28.03.2006 as well as rate Circular No. 25 of 2007.
42. It is also relevant to mention here that in rate Circular No. 25 of 2007 dated 13.03.2007 in Para 2.0(6) it is provided as follows:
6. Concurrent Freight concession: Normally, benefits of freight concession under a particular Scheme cannot be taken concurrently with benefits under any other Freight Incentive Scheme or any other freight concession for any portion of traffic, unless explicitly permitted under the relevant Scheme or policy. Concurrency of Freight concessions under a particular Freight Incentive Scheme and any other Freight concession policy will be permitted in accordance with the provisions of the Policy concerned.
43. Freight rebate is defined in Para 2.0(15), which is as follows:
15. Freight Rebate: This refers to a freight concession granted by way of a refund based on fulfillment of certain agreed performance parameters over a period of time. Traffic is booked at the terminals at normal tariff rate and refund by way of rebate is paid in lump sum.
44. Para-3.0 provides for processing procedure, which is as follows:
3.0 Processing Procedure A customer will be able to participate in any of the freight incentive scheme only if he specifically applies for the same, unless and until the specific scheme mentions that application is not required. The detailed procedure for processing a proposal received from a customer regarding any of the freight incentive schemes as mentioned in these instructions is given below, except wherever an alternate specific procedure has been prescribed in any scheme.
45. In Para 4.2 long term special incentive scheme regarding concurrent freight concessions has been provided which is as follows:
Concurrent Freight Concessions:
Benefits of freight concession under this Scheme cannot be taken concurrently with any other Freight Incentive Scheme for any portion of traffic, unless explicitly permitted under the relevant Scheme.
Concurrency of Freight concessions under this Freight Incentive Scheme and any other Freight concession policy will be permitted in accordance with the provisions of the Policy concerned.
46. Para 4.3-incentive scheme for traditional empty flow direction also provides concurrent freight concessions, which is as follows:
Concurrent Freight Concessions:
Benefits of freight concession under this Scheme cannot be taken concurrently with any other Freight Incentive Scheme for any portion of traffic, unless explicitly permitted under the relevant Scheme except for the exemption mentioned in this Section.
47. In Para 4.4 incentive scheme for freight forwarders, at Para 4.5 incentive scheme for two leg traffic, at Para 4.6 incentive scheme for loading bagged consignments in BOXN, at Para 4.7 incentive scheme for lump sum special rates and service level agreements, at Para 4.8 incentive scheme for greenfield projects for granting field projects, at Para 4.9 incentive scheme for traffic on MG and NG systems has been provided. In this regard, para 4.6 and 4.9 are being reproduced as under:
4.6 Concurrent Freight Concessions:
Benefits of freight concession under this Scheme cannot be taken concurrently with any other Freight Incentive Scheme for any portion of traffic unless explicitly permitted under the relevant Scheme except for the exemption mentioned in this Section.
4.9 Concurrent Freight Concessions:
Benefits of freight concession under this Scheme cannot be taken concurrently with any other Freight Incentive Scheme for any portion of traffic unless explicitly permitted under the relevant Scheme.
48. In Paras-4.4, 4.5, 4.7, 4.8 there is no provision for concurrent freight concessions, which are as follows:
4.4 Concurrent Freight Concessions: None 4.5 Concurrent Freight Concessions: None 4.7 Concurrent Freight Concessions: None 4.8 Concurrent Freight Concessions: None
49. On the basis of guidelines of Circular Nos. 25 of 2006 and 25 of 2007, we have perused the reply given by opposite parties to petitioner regarding his proposals and representations.
50. The opposite party, Chief Commercial Manager, vide letter dated 22.08.2006 has informed the petitioner as follows:
Sub : Concession for Traditional Empty Flow direction Ref: Your office letter No. KAFWEPL-Railway-NR-043 dated 5.7.06 With reference to your letter mentioned above, it is informed that 15% concession on timber waste when loaded in covered wagon viz. BCN/BCNA/BCNA HS/BCX wagons is already application. Therefore two concessions cannot be allowed simultaneously as concurrencing under incentive schemes for traditional empty flow direction is for investment reimbursement discounts and consignment volume Based schemes only.
This is for information please.
51. Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, Northern Railway, Lucknow, vide its letter dated 15.09.2006 (Annexure No. 10 ) has informed the petitioner as follows:
Subject : Traditional empty Flow direction concession.
Reference: Your letter no. KAFEPL-Railway/0044 dated: 11.07.06.
In reference to your letter cited above, it is informed that 15% concession on timber waste when loaded in covered wagon viz. BCN/BCNA HS/BCX wagons is already admissible. Therefore two concessions can not be allowed simultaneously as concurrencing under incentive schemes for traditional empty flow direction is for investment reimbursement discount and consignment volume based schemes only.
52. Vide letter dated 27.10.2006 (Annexure No. 16), Chief Commercial Manager has informed the petitioner as follows:
Sub : Concession for traditional empty flow direction Ref : Your office letter No. Nil dated 25-09-2006 Your request vide above referred letter has been examined. But it is to inform that same cannot be acceded to as double concession is not permissible simultaneously.
As such, decision conveyed vide this office letter of even no. dated 23.08.06 still holds good.
53. Vide letter dated 17.11.2006 (Annexure No. 17) the Deputy Chief Commercial Manager has informed the petitioner as follows:
Sub: Traditional Empty flow Direction Concession (Freight Incentive Scheme) Ref: Your letter no. nil dated 26th October-2006 In reference to your letter cited above regarding concession in Traditional Empty Flow direction on Timber Waste, it is informed that on the movement of timber waste, concession either under incentive scheme on Traditional Empty Flow direction or 15% concession when loaded in covered wagon is admissible at a time in terms of Railway Board's letter no. TCR/1078/2006/4 dated 27-10-06. As such both the concession cannot be granted con-currently.
54. On perusal of information/ reply given by opposite parties in reference to proposals and representations of petitioner, it reveal that opposite parties have rightly declined to accede the demand of freight discount/ rebate claimed by the petitioner, because proposals of petitioner could not be processed by the opposite parties as he had not opted for the new freight incentive schemes enumerated in rate Circular No. 25 of 2007 or Circular No. 25 of 2007, and he had not withdraw from the existing arrangement/ freight incentive schemes, station to station rate schemes, concessions on loading of timber wastes in covered wagons under RC-70 of 2005. He had not withdrawn from the existing schemes for freight concessions, i.e., 15% concession on timber wastes, when loaded in covered wagons.
55. On the basis of above discussions the petitioner is not entitled to be considered for freight discount/ rebate under freight incentive scheme, either under rate circular No. 25 of 2006 or rate circular No. 25 of 2007.
56. The contentions of writ petitioner does not call for invoking of extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
57. The writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed.
Order Date :- 20.04.2020 Mustaqeem Hon'ble The Chief Justice has nominated me to pronounce this judgment vide order dated 17.04.2020. Due to lock-down declared by the Central Government and Government of State of U.P., the judgment is pronounced by me being member of Division Bench today in Chamber as per Rule 1 sub-clause (1)(2) & (3) of Chapter VII of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952.
Dated: 20.04.2020 (Justice Virendra Kumar-II)