w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



M/s Ashok Dal & Oil Mills v/s Union of India & Others


Company & Directors' Information:- N K OIL MILLS PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U15201GJ1994PTC022669

Company & Directors' Information:- B P OIL MILLS LIMITED [Active] CIN = U15142UP1965PLC003232

Company & Directors' Information:- K P L OIL MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U15142KL1983PTC003685

Company & Directors' Information:- A. S. INDIA LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70100MP2009PLC022300

Company & Directors' Information:- K D DAL MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U15122UP2013PTC057832

Company & Directors' Information:- N K B OIL MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U15142KL1999PTC013095

Company & Directors' Information:- THE INDIA COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999TN1919PTC000911

Company & Directors' Information:- K K K OIL MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U15142KL2000PTC013621

Company & Directors' Information:- S N OIL MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U15142HR1986PTC025702

Company & Directors' Information:- G. B. OIL MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U15326HR1985PTC019817

Company & Directors' Information:- R. OIL MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U15141DL1992PTC047883

Company & Directors' Information:- J K OIL MILLS COMPANY LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U15143UP1955PLC002570

Company & Directors' Information:- DAL (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51103TN1998PTC039964

Company & Directors' Information:- N N OIL MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U15147MH1999PTC117989

Company & Directors' Information:- INDIA CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U65990MH1941PTC003461

Company & Directors' Information:- J & T OIL MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U15141KL2006PTC019754

Company & Directors' Information:- A AND R OIL MILLS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U15315CH1994PTC014265

Company & Directors' Information:- ASHOK OIL MILLS LTD. [Dissolved] CIN = U99999MH1948PLC006680

Company & Directors' Information:- UNION MILLS LIMITED [Dissolved] CIN = U99999MH1988PTC000078

    Writ Petition No. 2379 of 2015

    Decided On, 19 April 2017

    At, High Court of Madhya Pradesh

    By, THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE VANDANA KASREKAR

    For the Petitioner: K.C. Ghildiyal, A. Sahu, Advocates. For the Respondents: N.S. Ruprah, Advocate.



Judgment Text

1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the orders dated 8/12/2014, 10/12/2014 and 19/01/2015 issued by respondents No.4 and 5.

2. The Ministry of Railways had floated a scheme on 10/11/2009 and 13/09/2014. As per the said scheme, in case of a new traffic, the benefit of the Incentive Scheme for Incremental Traffic was not to be given. The petitioner has submitted an application for getting the said benefit. By an order dated 29/05/2014 respondent No.2 after verifying the entire eligibility criteria allowed the application of the petitioner for extending the benefit of grant of concession in freight under Incentive Scheme for Incremental Traffic. After getting the said benefit, the petitioner loaded 10 rakes of food grain and 17 rakes of Soya DOC during the financial year financial year 2014-15. The petitioner was granted freight concession on the aforesaid loading under the rates circular No.62/2009 issued by respondents. Thereafter vide order dated 11/12/2014 the respondents had informed the petitioner that the petitioner had not loaded the food grain during the period April, 2013 to April, 2014, therefore, the petitioner will be placed in the category of New Traffic, thus, is not entitled for the benefit of concession in freight under the Incentive Scheme for Incremental Traffic. While loading the food grains rakes on 11/12/2014, the petitioner was informed that the freight concession granted under the Incentive Scheme has been withdrawn and the petitioner was also asked to deposit the previous discount on the ground that loading by the petitioner falls within the definition of New Traffic, hence, no freight concession was admissible. The petitioner thereafter submitted a representation clarifying that during last two years it had loaded the rakes and gave the details of the same. On 19/01/2015 the respondents again repeated the said scheme to the effect that during the period April, 2013 to March, 2014, the petitioner had not loaded the food grains and, therefore, the petitioner falls within the category of New Traffic and is not entitled for the benefit of the scheme. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the orders passed by the respondents are illegal and arbitrary. He submitted that the petitioner does not fall within the definition of New Traffic, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to get the benefit of freight concession. He submitted that the petitioner, in the year 2012-13, had loaded the food grain and Soya DOC, however, in the year 2013-14 Soya DOC was loaded and no food grain was loaded. As per the scheme, to become entitled for freight concession during the year 2014- 15 for loading of food grain and Soya DOC, the petitioner was required to have loaded both these items at least in one year out of the block of two previous year (2012-13 and 2013-14). Since in the block of previous two years (2012-13 and 2013-14) and in one year (2012-13), the petitioner had loaded both food grains and Soya DOC, therefore, the petitioner was entitled for freight concession and he was rightly extended the benefit of incentive scheme in freight charges for loading of food grains and Soya DOC for the year 2014-15. He further submitted that the term 'New Traffic' was initially interpreted by the respondents and the concession under the incentive scheme was rightly extended to the petitioner. However, the same has been withdrawn subsequently. He further argued that a bare perusal of the definition of New Traffic, clearly suggests that in a block of two previous years if the loading of a commodity has not been done even for one year, it will be treated as a new traffic. Meaning thereby; if in a block of previous two years the commodity is loaded in none of the years, then it will fall in the category of new traffic. In other words, if in two years in none of the years the commodity is loaded, it will fall in the category of new traffic. However, if any of the two years the commodity is loaded, then it will not come within the definition of new traffic. In view of aforesaid submissions, he argued that as the petitioner has loaded food grains as well as Soya DOC for the years 2012-13 and 2013-14, therefore, the same does not fall within the definition of New Traffic.

4. The respondents have filed their reply and in the reply they have stated that the petitioner has loaded food grains in the financial year 2012-13 but no food grain has been loaded in the year 2013-14. It has been further stated that the requirement of law was that the same commodity should have been loaded in each of the two financial years and not in either of them or one of them. If the word 'each' was not in the definition of new traffic as given in para-20 of the circular, then the petitioner would have definitely got the advantage of freight concessions on food grain. In the year 2012-13, the petitioner loaded two rakes of food grain and one rake of Soya DOC. In the year 2013-14, the petitioner loaded three rakes of Soya DOC and no food grain, therefore, in the year 2014-15 food grain came within the definition of New Traffic, hence no freight concession was payable.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The respondents authorities have framed a scheme known as 'Freight Incentive Scheme and Transportation Products on 10/11/2009. As the petitioner was entitled to get the freight concession, the petitioner, therefore, submitted an application for getting the benefit of the said scheme. The application of the petitioner was allowed and the benefit of the said scheme was extended to the petitioner on 29/05/2014. Accordingly, the petitioner had loaded ten rakes of food grain and 17 rakes of Soya DOC and the petitioner was granted the freight concession on the said items. Thereafter when the petitioner was loading the food grain rakes on 11/12/2014, the petitioner was informed that freight concession granted under the Incentive Scheme has been withdrawn and the petitioner was asked to deposit the previous discount on the ground that the loading of the petitioner falls within the definition of New Traffic. The word 'New Traffic' has been defined in the circular dated 10/11/2009 (Annexure-P/1). Clause-20 of the said circular which defines 'New Traffic' reads as under :

"20. New Traffic : It refers to the traffic loaded by a customer in the current year from a terminal provided that this customer had not loaded same commodity from the same terminal in each of the 2 previous years."

6. As per the said clause, New Traffic refers to the traffic loaded by a customer in the current year from a terminal provided that this customer had not loaded the said commodity from the said terminal in each of two previous years. The petitioner, in the present case, has loaded both the commodities for the year 2012-13, however, in 2013-14 the petitioner loaded only Soya Doc. Since the petitioner has loaded Soya DOC and not the food grain in the year 2013-14, on this ground the respondents have stated that as the petitioner has not loaded the two commodities in two previous years, therefore, is not entitled to get the benefit. Definition of New Traffic clearly suggest that in a block of two p

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

revious years if the loading of a commodity has not been done even for one year, it will be treated as a new traffic. Meaning thereby if in a block of previous two years the commodity is loaded in none of the years, then it will fall in the category of new traffic. In other words, if in two years in none of the years the commodity is loaded, it will come in the category of new traffic. As in the present, the petitioner has loaded the goods for the year 2012-13 and 2013-14 i.e. two years and, therefore, the same would not fall within the definition of New Traffic, thus, the respondents cannot withdraw the benefit which is extended to the petitioner. 7. In view of aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 08/12/2014, 10/12/2014 and 19/01/2015 are hereby set aside.
O R