JYOTIRMAY BHATTACHARYA, J. - (1.) THIS Mandamus Appeal is directed against the judgment and/or order passed by a lea Single Judge of this Court on 29th September, 2014 in W.P No.14656(W) of 2011, at the ins of the writ petitioner/appellant herein.
(2.) LET us now consider the merit of this present appeal in the facts of the instant case. appellant No.1 carries on business of manufacture and sale of iron ore related products. Iusual course of its business the said appellant transports iron ore through railway wagons. railways have fixed different tariffs for carriage of different goods. For carriage of iron ore, hi tariff i.e., Class 180 is charged when iron ore is transported for domestic consumption b consignee. However, in respect of iron ore which is meant for non -domestic consumption sa example for export, the railways imposed an additional Distance Based Charge in additi Class 180 tariff. The appellant has availed of railway services from time to time for carria iron ore from Odisha and Jharkhand to West Bengal through wagons by paying tariff at th as mentioned in Class 180.
(3.) ON 16th August, 2011 the railways issued a demand notice followed by demand -cumcause notice by corrigendum dated 8th August, 2011, inter alia, alleging that the appellan availed of railway services by paying concessional tariff at Class 180 by declaring that the iro transported by the appellant was meant for domestic consumption but in fact the appellan exported iron ore without utilizing the same for its domestic consumption. By the said dem cum -show cause notice, the railways claimed a sum of Rs.1,32,00,01,758/ - towards ev freight charges and a further sum of Rs.5,28,00,07,032.00 towards penalty and additionally railway services were suspended. The said demand -cum -show cause notice dated 16th Au 2011 is under challenge in the writ petition. Affidavits were exchanged between the parties i said proceeding. In the said proceeding the following issues were raised: - 1. Whether the railway administration has any power or authority of making direct recove evaded freight charges through any coercive means? 2. Whether the Rates Circular No.36 of 2009 issued by the railway board on 1st June, 20 legal and enforceable? 3. Whether the railway administration is entitled to impose penal charges in the ma prescribed in clause or para 6 of the Rates Circular No.36 of 2009? 4. Whether the railway administration is empowered to black list the appellant and th prevent it from enjoying the railway services for transshipment of iron ore from one stati the other on the ground of alleged evasion of railway freights? The said writ petition was disposed of by the learned Trial Judge in the following terms. 48. "This writ petition is thus disposed of in the following terms: - a) Clause 6 of the Rates Circular No. 36 of 2009 is valid and enforceable. b) The Railway Administration is entitled to impose penal charges in the manner prescribed in aforesaid Clause or para 6. c) The Central Government shall be entitled to issue direction on Railway Administration for blacklisting the petitioner if there is any false, inaccurate or misleading statement in the endorsement of the forwarding note and/or affidavit furnished under the provisions of para/clause 3 of the said Rates Circular, but the authorities will have to give fresh notice of show cause in such a situation, and give opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. d) The Railway Administration shall also be empowered to suspend the operation of the petitioners in relation to their loading activities for a limited period of time after issue of a fresh notice to show cause and upon giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, if breach of conditions in availing lower freight rate is established during such administrative proceeding. e) In the event the petitioners have transported any goods paying the lower freight rate specified for domestic use of iron ore without filing proper indemnity note or affidavit from an authorized person as per the prescribed form, then the petitioners shall be charged as per the regular rate fixed for transporting iron ore and the Railway Administration in such a situation shall raise demand on the petitioners within a period of eight weeks. A statement shall be given to the petitioners as part of the demand notice showing the manner of computation of the differential rates. The petitioners shall be liable pay the differential rates within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the demand. f) The entire transportation of goods, being iron ore by the petitioners which have been carried on without furnishing of affidavits by an authorized person as admitted in paragraph 44 of the writ petition, shall be charged at the regular rate for transportation of iron ore and the petitioners shall not be entitled to claim lower freight rate meant for domestic use for such goods. But recovery for the same would have to be by institution of a civil suit. g) The Railway Authorities shall otherwise be entitled to proceed with adjudication at the administrative level in terms of SectionB of the demand notice. h) As agreed by Mr. Pathak, for recovery of the sum specified in the demand notice, the respondents shall be entitled to proceed with the civil action". ;