Murlidhar, J. - (1.) This writ petition by the Mahabir Jute Mills Ltd., Sahjanwa, district Gorakhpur, seeks two reliefs. The first and the main relief is quashing of the orders dated 29-9-1975 (passed by the Railway Rates Tribunal, Madras, dated 22-10-1975 (passed by the General Manager, Commercial, North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur), dated 9-10-1975 (passed by the Chief Commercial Superintendent, North-Frontier Railway, Pandu) and the consequential order dated 30-10-1975 (passed by the Station Master, Sahjanwa, Gorakhpur) by which the concessional rates allowed to the petitioner regarding jute traffic from certain stations in Bihar and Assam were withdrawn. The second prayer is for a direction requiring the Union of India and the Railway Administrations concerned to refund the excess charges in pursuance of the above orders.
(2.) The brief facts are these: The petitioner company is one of the three Jute Mills situate in Uttar Pradesh, the other two being at Kanpur. Jute industry started in Uttar Pradesh in 1931 with the opening of the J. K. Jute Mills. The petitioner mill was incorporated in 1935. As Uttar Pradesh produced little jute these mills have been importing a good part of their supplies through rail from Bihar and Assam. Since the very inception the Railway had extended concessional station to station rates to these mills. Since 1-7-1975 a substantial reduction of these concessions was proposed by the aforesaid Railways. The J. K. Jute Mills, Kanpur, filed a complaint under Sec. 41. Indian Railways Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) before the Railway Rates Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) against the proposed partial withdrawal of concessional rates and the Tribunal per its order dated 29-7-1956 (hereinafter referred to as the 1956 order) decided that station-to-station rates should be granted from only 22 of Bihar stations to Kanpur at 30 per cent below the class rates applicable, but terminal and transhipment charges would be extra. Against this decision the J. K. Jute Mills filed a writ petition in this court. The petitioner mill also on 2-10-1957 filed (sic) a Tribunal claiming that the withdrawal of concessional rates for the jute traffic to Sahjanwa with effect from 1-7-1955 was unreasonable. On 14-3-1961, the matter was compromised between the petitioner mill and the Union of India representing the two Railway Administrations concerned. A copy of this compromise is Annexure 2 to the petition but since the whole of it is pertinent for the disposal of this petition it is quoted below: "Terms of compromise between (1) Sri P. D. Maskara, -representing the Mahabir Jute Mills Ltd., Sahjanwa, on the one hand, hereinafter called the Firm, and (2) The President of India acting through the Chief Commercial Superintendent, North-Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur, and the Chief Traffic Superintendent, North-East Frontier Railway, Pandu, on the other hand, hereinafter called the Railway Administrations, in respect of Complaint No. 4 of 1957 before the Railway Rates Tribunal at Madras in re; The Mahabir Jute Mills Ltd., Sahjanwa v. The Union of India owning and representing. The North-Eastern Railway and 2. 'Hie North-East Frontier Railway. 1. In view of this settlement complaint No. 4 of 1957 pending before the Railway Rates Tribunal at Madras shall be withdrawn by the firm. 2. Special rates for jute to Sahjanwa will be quoted by,the Railway Administrations from the stations in the Kathihar, area from which special rates to Kanpur are in force, provided the firm had asked for special rates from these stations in their aforesaid complaint to the tribunal. These special rates will be on the same basis of reduction as is being applied in the case of special rates to Kanpur, i.e. 30% reduction in the Tariff rates. These special rates will take effect from 1st July, 1960. 3. As for bookings made during the earlier periods, the difference between the freight charges due at the normal tariff rates, or the freight actually collected, if it was less from the firm in respect of Jute traffic to Sahjanwa, and the freight payable at the special rates on the same basis as quoted' for Kanpur, will be worked out for the bookings from 2nd October, 1957 (the date of filing of the complaint before the Railway Rates Tribunal) to 30th June 1960, and, two-thirds of the difference will be refunded to the firm by the Railway Administrations. 4. In addition to the special rates from stations referred to in item (2) above, an additional special rate for jute will also be quoted by the Railway Administrations with effect from 1st July, 1960, from Baghdogra, a station situated near Silliguri. The basis of this special rate will, however, be 25% less than the Tariff rate. Refunds on past bookings, as in the case of traffic from other stations vide item (3) above, will also be allowed by the Railway Administrations to the firm in respect of traffic from Baghdogra. 5. If there is any change in the basis of the special rates quoted by the Railway Administrations to Kanpur in future. the rates to Sahjanwa will also be altered by the Railway Administrations accordingly. 6. If any change in the basis of the rates to Kanpur is effected by the Railway Administrations with retrospective effect based on the case filed by J. K. Jute Mills (i.e. by way of reduction in the weight condition etc.) in the Allahabad High Court and, if any additional refund becomes due from the Railway Administrations to the firm on that "basts in respect of bookings from 2nd October, 1957 to 30th June 1960, two-thirds of such an amount will only be refundable. From 1st July 1960 and onwards, the full refund is to be made on that basis. 7. The aforesaid terms of compromise between the parties have been arrived at specifically subject to the condition that these will come into force only after the firm have withdrawn their aforesaid complaint at present pending before the Railway Rates Tribunal at Madras. In withdrawing this complaint, the parties will bear their own costs. For: The Mahabir Jute Mills Ltd. Sahjanwa. Sd/- Illegible Sd/- Illegible 14-3-1961, Chief Commercial Supdt., North-Eastern Railway. Chief Traffic Supdt., North-East Frontier Railway." Under this settlement the Railways granted and continued granting concessional rates for Sahjanwa from the stations mentioned in the compromise on the same lines as allowed by the Tribunal for Kanpur per its 1956 order. In 1974, however, the Railway Administrations moved under Section 41-A of the Act for the revision of rates granted to J. K. Jute Mills, Kanpur. The Tribunal per its order dated 29-9-1975 (Annexure 6 to the petition) allowed this complaint and revoked its earlier order dated 29-7-1956. Apparently in view of the above quoted settlement under which the jute traffic (tariff) rate for Sahjanwa was in the matter of concession to follow the rate to J. K. Jute Mills, Kanpur, the two Railway Administrations issued the impugned orders withdrawing the concession to the petitioner also with effect from 29-9-1975, the date of the Tribunals order in the J. K. Jute Mills case. It is to be noted that the orders withdrawing the concessional rates to Sahjanwa were issued by the two Railway Administrations on 9-10-1975 and 22-10-1975, but were to have retrospective effect with effect from 29-9-1975.
(3.) The petitioners attack on the Tribunals order dated 29-9-1975 can be disposed of briefly. The petitioner was not a party to the proceedings under Section 41-A of the Act by the Railway Administrations before the Tribunal in which that order was passed. The petitioner was also not directly concerned with the rates for Kanpur. It never applied for being impleaded as a party to those proceedings under Rule 18 of the Railway Rates Tribunal Rules, 1959. Under Rule 19 (3) of those Rules a public notice of the proceedings before the Tribunal had been duly published. The object of this is to enable any person interested to intervene under Rule 32 or apply for being made a party. The petitioner never chose to intervene. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to Rule 11 under which a complaint under Section 41 is contemplated to have respondents other than the Railway Administrations also in certain cases and it is provided that the complaint in such cases shall set forth the grounds for impleading them. This rule runs as follows:- "11 (1). A complaint under Section 41 (1) shall be addressed to the Tribunal and shall be in writing signed and verified. It shall set out the name, description, and full address of the complainant and, if there be a pleader or representative duly authorised in writing acting for the complainant in the matter, his name and full address shall also be stated. (2) The complaint shall contain a clear and concise statement of facts, the grounds of complaint, the relief or remedy which the complainant claims and, where a person other than a Railway Administration is arrayed as respondent, it shall set forth the grounds for impleading him." Since no separate procedure is prescribed for the Railway Administrations complaint under Section 41-A, it may be taken that the procedure prescribed for complaint under Section 41 would also mutatis mutandis apply to proceedings under Section 41-A. The argument is that the Railway Administrations could have and should have impleaded the petitioner as a respondent in the complaint as a person interested under Rule 11 because they were fully aware that the petitioner was to be vitally affected by the proceedings under Section 41-A and was, therefore, interested in the dispute regarding concessional rates to Kanpur. It has been urged that omission to do this vitiates the order. There is no force in this submission either. To implead a person interested under R. 11 is an optional matter with the complainant and considering the settlement with the petitioner it cannot be said that the Railway Administrations must have impleaded the petitioner in the complaint under Section' 41-A regarding Kanpur rates with which the petitioner had no direct concern. Therefore, that decision cannot be attacked on the ground that the petitioner was not impleaded as a party to that case. In short the petitioners attack on the order dated 29-9-1975 fails on the simple ground that it had not been a party to those proceedings and it not being directly concerned with the rate dealt with by them, has no standing to challenge that order.;