Madhya Pradesh High Court
M/S S.R.Ferro Alloys(A Registered ... vs Union Of India on 30 July, 2018
1 W.P.No.1256/2018
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
W.P.No.1256/2018
Indore, Dated:30.7.2018
Shri R.S.Chhabra, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Ankit Kesharwani, learned counsel for the
respondent no.1.
Shri H.Y.Mehta, learned counsel for respondents no.2,3 and 4.
Learned counsel for the respondents no.2,3 and 4 has raised a preliminary objection that this Bench has no territorial jurisdiction because the order Annexure P-12 has been issued by the South East Central Railway Bilaspur Division. Further preliminary objection has been raised that the petitioner has remedy of approaching the Railway Claims Tribunal under Section 13 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties on the issue of preliminary objection, it is noted that the case of the writ petitioner is that Manganese Ore of 2800 Metric Ton was loaded from Meghnagar, Jhabua for transportation to Baraduar, Chattisgarh and on the way at Katni excess weight of 185.60 Metric Ton was found.
According to the petitioner the railway receipt issued by the respondent no.2 was prima facie evidence of the weight and number of packages stated therein and the petitioner's application for re-weightment has not been decided. Hence, the case of the petitioner is that weightment done at Meghanagar was proper. That apart the petitioner has also challenged Annexure P-10 which is an order issued by the Station Manager (Goods) Meghnagar; hence a part of cause of action has arisen 2 W.P.No.1256/2018 within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.
Therefore, in view of Article 226 (2) of the Constitution of India as also in the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd Vs. Union of India and another reported in (2004)6 SCC 254 paragraph 10 this Court has the territorial jurisdiction.
So far as issue of the alternative remedy is concern, counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the issue of violation of natural justice is involved and referring to paragraph 8 of the judgment of the Gauhati High Court in the matter of Union of India Vs. Salt Marketing Centre reported in (1995) 3 Gauhati Law Reports 361 and paragraph 11 and 12 of the judgment by the Division Bench in the matter of Megha Technical Engineers (P.) Ltd. Vs. Union of India and others reported in (2018)1 GAUHATI LAW REPORTS 597, he has raised an issue that principle of natural justice was required to be followed while taking penal action on the ground of excess weightment.
Having regard to the above and in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and others reported in (1998) 8 SCC 1, I am of the opinion that it would not be just and proper to dismiss the writ petition on the ground of availability of alternative remedy; hence the preliminary objection is rejected.
List after four weeks.
(PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA) Judge das Digitally signed by REENA DAS Date: 2018.08.01 18:45:55 +05'30'