Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Rashmi Metaliks Ltd. & Ors vs The Union Of India & Ors on 27 July, 2015
Author: Subrata Talukdar
Bench: Subrata Talukdar
1
27.07.2015
03
b.r
W.P. No. 25261(W) of 2012
Rashmi Metaliks Ltd. & Ors.
-vs-
The Union of India & Ors.
Mr. Sabyasachi Chowdhury,
Mr. Sarbapriya Mukherjee
Ms. Pritha Basu,
........for the petitioners.
Mr. Saptarshi Roy,
....... For the Respondents-U.O.I.
-------------
Sri Sabyasachi Chowdhury, learned Counsel, appears for the petitioners.
The railway-respondents are represented by Sri Saptarshi Roy, learned Counsel.
The matter appears under the heading "To Be Mentioned" today.
Sri Chowdhury, learned Counsel submits that the issues raised in the writ petition may be referred to the Railway 2 Claims Tribunal set up under the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 for a complete adjudication of such issues on evidence.
It is noticed by this Court that by order dated 18th of December, 2012 the maintainability of the writ petition was kept open by an Hon'ble Single Bench and parties were given liberty to exchange affidavits.
Sri Saptarshi Roy, learned Railway Counsel files affidavit-in-opposition in Court today, which is kept with the record. From paragraph-6 at page-4 of the affidavit-in- opposition, it is specifically pleaded on behalf of the railway- respondents that the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 is a complete Code and the Railway Claims Tribunal is the competent forum to decide the issues raised in this writ petition.
Having regard to the above noted pleadings by the railway-respondents in their affidavit-in-opposition, this Court is satisfied that the prayer made by the writ petitioners to the effect that this writ petition may be transferred to the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal and, if necessary, subject to directions by the learned Tribunal the procedural formalities 3 relating to filing may be supplemented by the petitioners before the learned Tribunal.
Sri Chowdhury, learned Counsel brings to the notice of this Court that in view of the pendency of the writ petition, which was filed admittedly within a period of six months from the date of the claims raised by the railway-respondents, the notice as required under Section 106 (3) of The Railway Act, 1989 may be dispensed with in view of the transfer of the writ petition before the learned Tribunal.
This Court is of the further opinion that in the light of the filing and subsequent present order of transfer of this writ petition, it shall be deemed to be treated as compliance of Section 106(3) of The Railways Act, 1989. The learned Tribunal will proceed to decide the matter on merits in accordance with law.
With the above directions, WP No. 25261(W) of 2012 stands disposed of as transferred.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of all necessary formalities.
4(Subrata Talukdar, J)