← Library
High Court of KeralaWP(C)/9848/2010disposed of

Abraham Ittoop And Others v. Union Of India And Others

2015-11-06Honourable Mr. Justice K.Abraham Mathew5 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.ABRAHAM MATHEW FRIDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2015/15TH KARTHIKA, 1937 --------------------------- PETITIONER(S):

--------------------------

1. ABRAHAM ITTOOP AND OTHERS NATIONAL EMTERPRISES, OZHATHIL BUILDINGS OZHATHIL ROAD, KOTTAYAM-1.

2. MANOJ M.MATHEW, PROPRIETOR, MANOJ AGENCIES, VENTHETTU BUILDINGS, OZHATHIL ROAD KOTTAYAM-1.

3. AVIRACHEN MATHEW K., A&V CARGO MOVERS, GOOD SHEPHERD COMPLEX, GOOD SHEPHERD ROAD, KOTTAYAM-2.

4. JOSEPH JOHN, PROPRIETOR, MARS AGENCIES, PALAKKASSERIL BUILDINGS, OZHATHIL ROAD KOTTAYAM-1.

BY ADVS.SRI.GEORGE JACOB (JOSE) SMT.N.G.ANITHA RESPONDENT(S):

----------------------------

1. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS REP. BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, SECRETARIAT, NEW DELHI-110001.

2. THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIVISION THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695004.

3. THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL COMMERCIAL MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIVISION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695004..

4. THE STATION MANAGER, KOTTAYAM RAILWAY STATION, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, KOTTAYAM-686001.

5. THE CHIEF GOODS SUPERVISOR, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, KOTTAYAM GOODS SHED, KOTTAYAM-686001.

6. (ADDL) THE JOINT DIRECTOR, TRAFFIC, COMMERCIAL (RATES) RAILWAY BOARD, NEW DELHI-110001.

7. (ADDL) THE CHIEF COMMERCIAL MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAYS CHENNAI-600003.

BY ADV. SRI.JAMES KURIAN, SC, RAILWAYS BY SRI.N.B.SUNIL NATH,SC, RAILWAYS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06-11-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

---------------------------------- EXHIBIT.P1-TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 30.9.2009 IN W.P.(C) NO.27403/2009.

EXHIBIT.P2-TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 2.11.2009 IN W.P.(C). 31075/2009.

EXHIBIT.P3-TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 20.3.2010 ENHANCING THE DEMURRAGE CHARGES FROM RS.100/- TO RS.300/- FROM 22.3.2010 TO 15.4.2010.

EXHIBIT.P4-TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 14.12.2006 OF THE INDIAN RAILWAYS PORTAYING RATES OF DEMURRAGE CHARGES AS FIXED BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT.

EXHIBIT.P5-TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.74/2005 DATED 19.12.2005 ALONG WITH CORRIGENDUM DATED 17.1.2008 OF THE ADDITIONAL 6TH RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT.P6-TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 29.12.2005 ISSUED BY THE ADDITIONAL 7TH RESPONDENT.

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:

NIL ---------------------------------------- R.AV //True Copy// PA to Judge

K.ABRAHAM MATHEW, J --------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.9848 OF 2010 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of November 2015

J U D G M E N T

-------------------- The petitioners purchased certain goods from another State which was sent through railway, which imposed penal demurrage charges on the petitioners as they failed to clear the goods. This is challenged in this writ petition. 2.

When the matter was taken up for hearing, it was submitted that a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.917 of 2014 and connected cases has passed a judgment in an identical case and the same order may be passed in this case also. I am satisfied that the submission is reasonable.

In the result, this writ petition is disposed of as follows:

i) The petitioners may file an application before the 5th respondent waive the penal demurrage charges within 30 days from today stating the particulars and the reasons for the

W.P.(C).NO.9848 OF 2010 request. It shall be accompanied by necessary records.

ii) The 5th respondent shall forward the applications for waiver to the respondent concerned with his remarks within 15 days from the receipt of the applications.

iii) The respondent concerned shall take a decision on the application taking into consideration the reasons that may be given by the petitioners in their applications and the circumstances. He shall thereafter pass appropriate orders. In case the petitioners are aggrieved by the said decision, they can prefer an appeal to the authority concerned.

sd/- K. ABRAHAM MATHEW JUDGE R.AV //True Copy// PA to Judge