- (1.) MR . Mittal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted as follows. The demand of stacking charges from 1.3.2010 was bad, as due to prohibitory order under Section 144 of Cr.P.C. the petitioner could not transport the iron ore stacked at Jaroli Railway Station. After the said order was relaxed on 1.5.2010, petitioner wanted to remove the iron ore, but the respondents -Railways insisted for payment of stacking charges even for the prohibitory period. As such demand was apparently wrong, petitioner was justified in refusing to pay it. Then after about six months i.e. in the month of November 2010, a demand of Rs.2,72,16,000/ - was served on the petitioner for the period 1.3.2010 to 31.10.2010 excluding the prohibitory period from 6.3.2010, to 30.4.2010. Such demand again is bad as the Railways could not penalize the petitioner for the delay caused by it in not correcting the demand. As the Railways insisted for payment of such demand, the petitioner had to file this writ petition.
(2.) ON the other hand, Mr. Tewari learned counsel appearing for the Railways justifying the demand submitted as follows. In Chakradharpur Division 'dump and load' system as per clause 3.2 of DRC No. 12(G) of 2009 (Annexure -7) was prevailing under which the consignor was allowed to dump the material at the loading point on the confirmed forecast from the Chief Controller (Mineral) of the Division. The advance stacking of iron ore was not permissible. Petitioner stacked iron ore to the tune of 3556.1 Metric Tonne without making any indent or without any permission. Petitioner could have lifted the material just after the prohibitory order was relaxed on 1.5.2010 by making payment of stacking charges, and could have prayed for waiver of the charges during prohibitory period, which could have been refunded to it. The stacking charges is accruing every day for which additional bill will be raised at the time of lifting of the material. Had the petitioner followed the 'dump and' load' system as per para 3.2 of DRC No. 12(G) of 2009, he could not have been affected by the prohibitory orders under Section 144 Cr.P.C. All the other parties have paid such demands. In reply, Mr. Mittal submitted that the materials were dumped by the petitioners against alive indents of the contracting parties, the Railways allowed the petitioner to dump such huge quantity. The Railways could have refused dumping if it was unauthorised. The payment of such demand by other parties is not binding on the petitioner and moreover such payments have been made under protest.
(3.) THUS , the question is whether the demand of stacking charges from 1.5.2010 onwards is justified or not.;