Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

15.02.2022 Order No.

05. 1. The limited grievance in the present petition filed by Orissa Stevedores Ltd. (OSL) against an order dated 6th November 2007 of the Railways Rates Tribunal of India (RRT) in Complaint No.7 of 2007 is that the RRT erred in deleting Steel Authority of India Ltd. (SAIL) (Opposite Party No.3) herein as a party to the aforementioned Complaint filed by the OSL against the East Coast Railways (ECR), Paradip Port Trust Railways (PPTR) and SAIL.

4. It appears that the Railways raised their claim on SAIL alleging that there was overloading of the wagons which were weighed at a location 6 KMs away from the point of loading. While SAIL paid the amount under protest, it started deducting the said amount from the running bills of OSL.

5. OSL started litigation in two fora. One was the arbitration it commenced against SAIL and the other was the Complaint No.7 of 2007 filed before the RRT. By the impugned order, the RRT deleted SAIL from the array of parties in the said complaint on the ground that it was the responsibility of the OSL to pay premium charges as per the terms of engagement. RRT observed that merely because the OSL is of the view that SAIL has similar interest in the subject matter, there is no reason for impleading SAIL as Respondent. OSL would have to persuade SAIL to join it as co-complainant. Accordingly, the RRT directed the deletion of the SAIL from the array of parties. It is this portion of the impugned order that the OSL is aggrieved by.

6. Initially, OSL had directly approached the Supreme Court of India in SLP (Civil) Nos.36-37 of 2008 against the impugned order of the RRT. However, those SLPs were dismissed as // 3 // withdrawn by the Supreme Court of India by an order dated 18th January 2008 permitting OSL to approach this Court.

7. Thereafter, the present petition was filed. By an order dated 17th July 2008, while directing notice to be issued in the present petition, this Court stayed further proceeding before the RRT in the aforementioned Complaint No.7 of 2007. That stay order is continuing since then.

8. Although, SAIL was served in the present petition and one Mr. Sarat Chandra Ghose had entered appearance on its behalf, today none is appearing for SAIL. As far as ECR is concerned, Mr. Katikia, learned counsel who represents them informs the Court that there is no objection to SAIL being impleaded as party before the RRT.

9. With there being no contest in the present petition, the Court sets aside that portion of the impugned order of the RRT to delete SAIL from the array of parties in Complaint No.7 of 2007 before the RRT. There is support for this conclusion from Section 36 of the Railways Act, 1989 read with Regulation 13 (2) of the Railways Rates Tribunal (Procedure) Regulations, 1990. For ready reference, Section 36 of the Railways Act, 1989 and Regulation 13 (2) of the Regulations are reproduced hereunder: