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



M/s. National Carrying Corporation represented by Jagdish Prasad Sharma v/s The Union of India represented by the General Manager, N.F. Railway & Others


Company & Directors' Information:- L S CARRYING COMPANY PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U60210WB1992PTC055271

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

Company & Directors' Information:- J P INDIA LTD [Active] CIN = U51909AS1983PLC002014

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

Company & Directors' Information:- NATIONAL UNION CORPN PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U51909WB1940PTC010240

Company & Directors' Information:- NATIONAL UNION LTD [Not available for efiling] CIN = U74999KL1951PLC000818

    WA No. 343 of 2016

    Decided On, 24 October 2016

    At, High Court of Gauhati

    By, THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AJIT SINGH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJIT BHUYAN

    For the Petitioner: J.C. Gaur, D. Chakrabarty, Advocates. For the Respondents: Asstt. S.G.I.



Judgment Text

Ajit Singh, C.J.

1. Mr. J.C. Gaur, learned counsel for the appellant. Mr. A Barkataki, learned Standing Counsel, North East Frontier Railway for the respondents.

2. Heard on admission.

3. This appeal is directed against the order dated 24.8.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge of this High Court, whereby he has finally disposed of appellant's WP(C) No.1866/2007 in terms of order dated 11.6.2015 passed in WP(C) No.1841/2007.

4. The appellant had taken on lease parcel wagons or VPU from the Railways. A lease agreement had also been executed between the appellant and the Railways. The initial lease rent was stipulated in the agreement itself. The escalation was also envisaged under Clause 30, providing for increase of freight rates for budgetary hike or other reasons with the protective clause that in the first year of lease, escalation will not be enforced. Because of budgetary cost increase, the freight rate was enhanced by the Railways. The increased freight rate was, however, kept in abeyance for one year as per agreement. But still aggrieved with the increase in freight rates, the appellant filed WP(C) No.1866/2007.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant admitted before the learned Single Judge that the similar issue was decided in WP(C) No.1841/2007 vide order dated 11.6.2015 whereby aggrieved operators were given liberty to make representations and Chief Commercial Manager, North East Frontier Railway was directed to decide the same. The learned counsel for the appellant in fact prayed for similar direction in the writ petition. To this prayer, the learned counsel for North East Frontier Railway had fairly agreed. The learned Single Judge, therefore, by the impugned order finally disposed of the writ petition of appellant by giving him liberty to file representation with a direction to the Chief Commercial Manager, North East Frontier Railway to decide the same. The learned Single Judge has also directed that recovery should be restricted to 5% of the enhanced amount till the decision of appellant's representation.

6. Apparently, the order under challenge in the present appeal has been passed with the consent of learned

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

counsel for the appellant. This being the situation, it cannot be held that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is either illegal or bad in law. 7. The appeal has no merit and is accordingly dismissed summarily.
O R