- (1.) The Railways have a substantial claim against the first appellant company on account of freight for a previous period for which a civil suit has been filed in this Court. At the relevant point of time, and prior to the issuance of a notification that shall be referred to as R.C. 16 of 2016, the Railways had a policy of charging dual rates of freight for carrying iron ore: if the ore was carried for domestic consumption, there would be a lower charge; if the ore was to be exported, a higher freight would be charged. It was the claim of the Railways that the appellant company obtained the benefit of the lower freight rates to actually transport iron ore that was ultimately exported. Following a demand for the additional charges, the appellant company challenged the same and succeeded in W.P. 14656 (W) of 2011 in part. The matter was carried in appeal and the appellate Court agreed that the Railways had no right to demand freight or use coercive measures under the Railways Act, 1989 without filing a civil suit once the goods had been released to the consignee. The appellate order of December 24, 2014 also noticed that a civil suit had been filed by the Railways in this Court in respect of its previous claim. The appellate order upheld the writ petitioners' contention that the Railways had no right to blacklist any party under the Act of 1989 or refuse to carry the goods of such party under such statute. However, the appellate order noticed the dual pricing policy of the Railways and required the writ petitioners to pay the enhanced rate for future transportation of iron ore on the Railways and obtain a refund after satisfying the Railways that the transportation was effected for goods to be consumed in the domestic market. Two sets of special leave petitions were carried to the Supreme Court from the appellate order of December 24, 2014. The Railways questioned the appellate order finding that the Railways did not have the authority to blacklist any party or suspend the transport operations of a party. The writ petitioners challenged that aspect of the appellate order which devised a special payment procedure for the appellant company. It appears from an order of January 7, 2016 passed by the Supreme Court that no order by way of any interim measure was passed and the points were to be decided at the final hearing.
(2.) On or about May 9, 2016, the notification referred to R.C. 16 of 2016 was issued by the Railways, doing away with the dual pricing policy for transporting iron ore. From the day after the notification, the freight charges for iron ore were to be uniform irrespective of the ultimate use of the iron ore transported.
(3.) However, as far as the appellant company was concerned, a special provision was recorded in a memorandum of May 11, 2016: "Do not accept indents from M/s Rashmi Metaliks Limited till further advice." Such decision of the Railways as reflected in the said memorandum of May 11, 2016 was challenged by way of W.P.9536 (W) of 2016 (originally numbered as AST No. 155 of 2016). However, no effective order was made on May 17, 2016 on such petition and the same remains pending.;