BANSAL & CO, & ANR. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [1985] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 880 · Decided: 20-12-1985 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.S. PATHAK · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
880 
BANSAL & CO, & ANR, 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS, 
DECl!MllER 20, 1985 
[R,S, PATHAK AND SAllYASACHI MUKHARJI, JJ,] 
Indian Railways Act 1890 & s. 27A & Preferential Traffic 
Schedule - Movement of Coal - Priorities for - Stations nominated 
in Assam and Meghalaya Zones - Whether can be treated as stations 
at colliery sidings - Equitable' distribution of coal - Necessity 
of - Movement of traffic schedule - Sanction - Need for coordi-
nation between Coal Controller and General Managers. 
The Ministry of Railways exercising powers under section 
27A of the Railways Act issued a Preferential Traffic Schedule. 
This Schedule prescribed five priorities i,e. priorities 'A' to 
'E' with inter-se priority amongst 'A' to 'E' to be accorded by 
the railways for transport of certain goods or class of goods 
specified under each category. Different kinds of coal fell under 
priority 'C' (iii) which provides for movement of coal from 
collieries in accordance with programme and movements sponsored 
or recOlllDended by the Coal Controller or the State Government 
Director, (Movement) Railways. 
In Viklad Coal Keri:hant, Patiala v. u.0.1. (1984] 1 s.c,R. 
657, the Supreme Court held that (i) section 27 of the Indian 
Railways Act casts a duty on the Railway Administration to 
arrange for receiving and forwarding traffic without unreasonable 
delay and without partiality; (ii) Section 28 prohibited the 
railway 
administration 
from 
giving 
undue 
or 
unreasonable 
preference or advantage to any particular person or railway 
administration; (iii) Section 27A gave power to the Central 
Government to issue directions for giving special facilities or 
preferential treatment in transport of goods or class of goods 
consigned to the Central Government or the Government of any 
State; (iv) in order to be eligible for obtaining allotment of 
wagon under priority 'C' it is necessary for the person indent in 
the wagon to satisfy the five conditions specified therein, 
namely (a) that the coal is to be loaded from the collieries; (b) 
that the coal to be loaded is in conformity with the commodity 
quotas laid down from time to time f~r certain types of coal and 
or in accordance with the progrS11111e and movements sponsored or 
recommended by the Coal Controller and/or any Colllllittee appointed 
by him; (c) or it is sponsored or recommended bY the State 
BANSAL & CO. v. U.O.l, 
881 
Government and/or other rec011111ending authorities and accepted by 
the Railway Administrations; (d) or it is sponsored or rec011111en-
ded by Director, Movement (Railways) Calcutta; and (e) it must be 
in accordance with the Zonal Scheme applicable to each field and 
the.principles of transport rationalisation in force from time to 
A 
time, and that stoppage at way-side stations for the booking of 
B 
coal in wagons could not be described as violative of section 28 
of the Act or indicated unreasonable restrictions. 
The railways had been allotting wagons and rakes to its 
sponsored traders even after the judgment of the Supreme Court in 
Viklad's case in priority 'C' when loaded from various stations 
nominated for coal loading on N.F. Railways. For movement of 
Khasi Coal there is no station at colliery siding. As such the 
coal loaded from the stations nominated for coal loading on N.F. 
Railway had been taken as coal loaded from collieries. One party 
M/s Mangalam Enterprises - the respondent to the S.L.P. as well 
as to the writ petition filed a petition before the Gauhati High 
Court against the registration of indents on the basis of the 
priorities granted by Calcutta High Court. The High Court allowed 
the Civil Rule and directed the Railways to allot wagons in 
priority 'C' to the nponsored traders only when they fulfil the 
five conditions set out in V:lklad Coal Merchants, case and that 
otherwise the registration would be made under 'E' priority and 
allotment of wagon rakes shall strictly be according to the 
seniority of indents at the booking station as per rule 201 of 
the Goods Traffic, It further directed that all existing indents 
registered under item 'C' for the parties not fulfilling all the 
five conditions were to be covered in 'E', 
c 
D 
E 
PUrsuant to the aforesaid order the Railways had been 
F 
permitting 
loading 
of 
coal 
by 
those 
having 
sponsorship 
certificates under item 'E' even though the indents might have 
been registered under item 'C'. Hence these petitions to the 
Supreme Court. 
It wa

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.