Vinayak Logistic Rep... v. Union Of India Rep. ..., Gauhati High Court, Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

WP(C)/2594/2022

Attorney(S)

Advocate : Dr. A Saraf
Advocate : SC, Railway

Judges

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Manash Ranjan Pathak

Acts

SECTION 83 RAILWAYS ACT 1989

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The South Eastern Railway authorities issued a demand notice dated 27.04.2021 to the petitioner Firm for Rs. 31,25,141/- without stating any reason. Subsequently, another demand notice dated 16.03.2022 was issued alleging that the amount was due since 2015 and concerned recovery of railway dues before delivery and removal of goods from railway premises. A further demand notice dated 23.03.2022 indicated that due to non-payment, the petitioner’s consignment was held up at SGTY/Bauria under Section 83 of the Railways Act, 1989. Under compulsion and objection, the petitioner paid Rs. 5,00,000/-. Aggrieved by these actions, the petitioner filed this writ petition challenging the demand notices and related coercive measures.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the demand notices issued by the South Eastern Railway authorities for Rs. 31,25,141/- were justified and lawful, given the absence of stated reasons in the initial notice.
Whether the respondents could take coercive action, including withholding the petitioner’s consignment, under Section 83 of the Railways Act, 1989, in light of the petitioner’s objections and partial payment.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner’s Arguments

The consignee/endorsee has already delivered and removed the goods in question, challenging the basis for the demand and the hold on the consignment.
The petitioner made a partial payment of Rs. 5,00,000/- under compulsion and objection, reserving the right to contest the demand notices.

Respondents’ Position

The learned Central Government counsel accepted notice on behalf of the respondents but indicated the need to take proper instructions regarding acceptance.
No detailed arguments from the respondents were recorded in the opinion.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court recognized the procedural posture and the petitioners’ grievance regarding the demand notices and coercive actions. It noted the absence of reasons in the initial demand notice and the petitioner’s partial payment under protest. The court directed issuance of notice to the respondents and restrained them from taking any coercive action against the petitioner until the next date of hearing. The reasoning was primarily procedural, ensuring protection of the petitioner’s rights pending adjudication on merits.

Holding and Implications

The court issued the following order:

Notice was issued to the respondents, returnable in six weeks.
Respondents were restrained from taking any coercive action against the petitioner Firm pursuant to the demand notices dated 27.04.2021, 16.03.2022, and 23.03.2022 until the next date of listing.

The direct effect is a temporary stay on coercive recovery measures against the petitioner pending further proceedings. The opinion does not establish any new legal precedent or broader principle beyond the procedural relief granted.

Show full summary ...

Vinayak Logistic Rep. By Its Proprietor Sri Pravesh Kabra And Another v. Union Of India Rep. By The Secretary, Ministry Of Railways And Others

Manash Ranjan Pathak, J.:— Heard Mr. A. Goyal, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms. A. Gayan, learned Central Government counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 & 4.

2. The respondent authorities in the South Eastern Railway issued demand notice under No. OS/FG/KGP/SHM/17 dated 27.04.2021 to the petitioner Firm for an amount of Rs. 31,25,141/- without stating any reason for such demand. Subsequent to that, the respondent authorities in the South Eastern Railway, Kharagpur issued another demand notice under No. Com/G.29/Clearance of O/S/SHM/2021 dated 16.03.2022 to it for an amount of Rs. 31,25,141/- wherein it was alleged that the same was due since 2015, specifying that Recovery of Railway dues from the consignee/endorsee before delivery of Goods and before removal of Goods from Railway premises.

3. Since the respondent authorities in the South Eastern Railway, Kharagpur again issued demand notice under No. Com/G.29/Clearance of O/S/SHM/2021 dated 23.03.2022 to the petitioner Firm for the said amount of Rs. 31,25,141/- indicating that for non-payment of the said dues, the consignment of the petitioner firm has been held up at SGTY/Bauria as per the order of the Competent Authority of the Railway (Under Section 83 of the Railways Act, 1989), the petitioner made payment of Rs. 5,00,000/- under compulsion and under objection with the right to claim/object of such demand notice.

4. Being aggrieved with such action of the respondents in the South Eastern Railway, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition.

5. Mr. Goyal, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the consignee/endorsee has already delivered/removed the goods in question.

6. Issue notice, returnable by 6 (six) weeks.

7. As Ms. A. Gayan, learned Central Government counsel, has accepted the notices on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 4, no formal notice need to be issued to those respondents.

8. Petitioners shall serve requisite extra copies of this writ petition including the annexures appended thereto to Ms. Gayan, learned CGC during the course of the day obtaining necessary acknowledgment from her in that regard.

9. Ms. Gayan, learned CGC submits that though she has entered appearance on behalf of the respondents in the South Eastern Railways but she wants to take proper instruction regarding accepting of notice on behalf of them.

10. However, being the CGC, Ms. Gayan, learned counsel is directed to appear on behalf of the respondents in the South Eastern Railways in the matter.

11. Till the next date of listing, the respondents in the South Eastern Railway, Kharagpur and other concerned respondents shall not take any coercive action against the petitioner Firm in terms of their demand notice dated 27.04.2021 and subsequent demand notices dated 16.03.2022 and 23.03.2022, noted above.

12. List accordingly.

Vinayak Logistic Rep... v. Union Of India Rep. ...