M/S. S.K.L. CO. versus CHIEF COMMERCIAL OFFICER & ORS.

Citation: [2015] 15 S.C.R. 156 · Decided: 29-12-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: VIKRAMAJIT SEN · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2015] 15 S.C.R. 156 
A 
MIS. S.K.L. CO. 
v. 
CHIEF COMMERCIAL OFFICER & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 6905 of 2005) 
B 
DECEMBER 29, 2015 
[VIKRAMAJIT SEN AND SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, JJ.] 
Railways Act, 1989- ss. 30, 31, 70 and 71- Contract 
of lease of Front Second Class Luggage Rake (FSLR) and 
C 
Ventilated Parcel Van (VP) - By Railways - For a period of 
two years- The notification whereby the tenders were invited 
for grant of lease, challenged - On the ground that as a result 
of leasing out FSLR, the traders were denied the facility of 
transporting their goods at the rates specified in the Coaching 
D Tariff No. 24 Part Ill (Rates for Parcels & Luggage Traffic) -
Single Judge of High Court quashed the notification holding 
that award of contract of lease was bad in law- Division Bench 
of High Court held that action of inviting tenders could not be 
quashed as being opposed to ss. 30 and 31 - However, the 
E Division Bench issued directions to the Railways to 
incorporate certain regulatory checks on the unbridled power 
of the lessee by fixing upper limit on the tariff that could be 
charged by the contractors - On appeal, held: Railways is 
empowered to auction the space for a particular period, 
F provided the auction contractor adheres to prescribed tariff-
The Railways is bound to follow and implement the ethos 
and parameters set by the Act - The intendment behind a 
statute can be metamorphosed or diluted by the Parliament 
and not by a sub-delegate - The Railways is directed to 
G ensure that the successful tenderer, does not change carriage 
prices in excess of those prescribed by the Railways in 
Coaching Tariff No. 24 Part Ill - The appellants have failed 
to adduce any evidence to establish that the Railways had 
given undue preference in favour of any person, violating 
H 
SS. 70 and 71. 
156 
M/S. S.K.L. CO. v. CHIEF COMMERCIAL OFFICER 
157 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
A 
HELD: 1. In the instant case, the statute does not 
prescribe any particular manner in which the wagons 
are to be leased. Therefore, it cannot be said that if the 
manner of taking a particular action is prescribed under 
a statute, that action must be undertaken and performed B 
in that manner or not at all. [Paras 9 and 12] [173-E; 166-
C] 
Babu Verghese v. Bar Council of Kera/a (1999) 
3 SCC 422 : [1999] 1 SCR 1121 ; Hussein 
C 
Ghadial/y v. State of Gujarat (2014) 8 SCC 425 -
held inapplicable. 
2. The onus to prove that there has been a violation 
of Sections 70 and 71 of the Railways Act, 1989 is on the 
appellant, who failed to adduce any evidence to establish D 
that the Respondent - Railways had given undue 
preference in favour of any person. This is especially so 
in light of the fact that the lease was given after an auction 
process. [Para 12] [173-F] 
3.1 The direction by the Division Bench to the E 
Railway Administration that when calling for tenders, it 
should fix the outer limit or the upper limit of rates 
chargeable by the contractor for different trains, ensures 
a regulatory check upon the unbridled power of the 
contractor in fixing the tariff rates while accepting the F 
parcel service of the third parties. This direction has 
attained finality so far as the Respondents are concerned 
inasmuch as they have failed to challenge them by filing 
an appeal. [Para 12] [173-G-H; 174-A] 
G 
3.2 The Respondents have not earned an entirely 
favourable Judgment. Even though several points 
pressed by the victor of a litigation may have been 
viewed with favour, and the Respondent may have 
succeeded only one or some, if the matter is taken by H 
158 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 15 S.C.R. 
A the vanquished party to the portals of a superior forum, 
the victor may still press all the points argued by it earlier. 
A holistic reading of the impugned Judgment discloses 
that this direction was not given en passant or casually 
in that in the penultimate paragraph of the impugned 
B Judgment the Division Bench emphasised that although 
they were allowing two writ appeals, the success of the 
Respondents was subject to compliance with the 
directions. [Para 12) [174-D-E, F-G] 
Nalakath Sainuddin v. Koorikadan Sulaiman 
c 
(2002) 6 sec 1 : [20021 1 Suppl. scR 1 -
referred to. 
3.3 The Respondents are bound to follow and 
implement the ethos and parameters set by the Railways 
0 Act. The intendment behind a statute can be 
metamorphosed or diluted by Parliament but not by a 
sub-delegate. If a shift from the Railways bein

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