APARESH KUMAR SINGH,J. - (1.) HEARD Learned Counsel for the petitioner. However, no one appears on behalf of the respondents. On last occasion also, no one appeared on behalf of the respondents and the matter was adjourned to be listed after three weeks. The case of the petitioner is that he was entitled for refund of excess amount charged by the Indian Railways for carrying on freight from Brunco Sdg. at Burnpur to Harthala in Rajasthan for the periods mentioned in paragraph no. 4 of the writ petition ranging from April, 1995 to October, 1995 for which the petitioner had made his claim on 9th February, 1996.
(2.) IT is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner had been charged the freight for a distance of 1132 Kilometers whereas the distance between two stations is 1093 Kilometers only.
(3.) IT is submitted that inspite of fact that there is no dispute regarding the actual distance between two stations, only two claims of refund were allowed and rest of the claims of the refund for item nos. 3 to 7 have been refused as the petitioner had filed the claim application after expiry of prescribed time of six months as per Section 106 (3) of the Indian Railway Act, 1989. It is further submitted on the part of the petitioner that refund of excess amount of two items by Annexure -3 dated 24.03.2003 itself indicate that the factum of distance between two stations have not been disputed but the refund of the rest of the claims have been refused simply on account of the fact that it was made after six months, although the petitioner had made his claim for all the refunds in one application filed in February, 1996. It is further submitted that petitioner's representation was refused by the higher authority in a cryptic manner, vide order contained at Annexure -5 dated 23.06.2003. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India report in AIR : (2008) 5 SCC 632 in the case of Rajasthan State Electricity Board Vs. Union of India & Others in support of his contention that if the question of distance has not been disputed the claim for refund should not have been rejected on that account.;