Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. - (1.) Special leave petition Nos. 632 and 3386 of 1985 by M/s. Bansal and Co. and M/s. Orient Distributors respectively and the Writ Petition No. 43 of 1985 by M/s. Bansal and Co. under Article 32 of the Constitution challenge the validity of the order issued by the North East Frontier Railway dated 21st December. 1984 whereby the said railways sought to implement the judgment and order of the High Court of Gauhati in Civil Rule No. 619 of 1984.
(2.) By the said order, it was held that M/s. Vicky Coal Concern, Calcutta as well as M/s. Mangalam Enterprises were entitled to priority 'E' and not to priority 'C'. None of the parties, it was declared by the Gauhati High Court by its order passed on 11th December, 1984, fulfilled the requisite conditions for obtaining priority 'C' of Preferential Traffic Schedule of the railways (for short PTS). It was declared also, that there could not be any discrimination whatsoever between any trader and consumer whether privately sponsored trader or private consumer in priority 'E' and that they should be allotted and supplied wagons strictly in terms of the provision of Rule 201 of the Goods Traffic Rules (for short 'the rules') for acceptance, carriage and delivery of general goods issued by Indian Railways from time to time, and in order to get priority 'C', they had to fulfil the five conditions enjoined in the decisions of this Court in Viklad Coal Merchant, Patiala v. Union of India, (1984) 1 SCR 657.
(3.) In order to appreciate the position, it is necessary to state that there is in existence a rationalisation scheme for movements of coal, booking of coal is allowed from North-Eastern Railways to different States only when the same is sponsored by the respective State Governments. However, coal is allowed to move freely up to the stations on east of Silliguri as per said Rationalisation Scheme.;