TIIE UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, NORTH-EASTERN RAILWAY, GORAKHPUR versus THE INDIAN SUGAR MILLS ASSOCIATION, CALCUTTA & ANOTHER

Citation: [1967] 3 S.C.R. 219 · Decided: 21-03-1967 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.N. WANCHOO · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
TIIE UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL 
MANAGER, NORTH-EASTERN RAILWAY, GORAKHPUJt 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
v. 
THE INDIAN SUGAR MILLS ASSOCIATION, CALCUTTA & 
ANOTHER 
[K. N. WANCHOO AND V. BHARGAVA, JJ.) 
March 21, 1967 
Indian Railways Act, 1890, ss. 29 and 41-Charges made by Rail-
ways for maintenance, etc. of "assisted siding" 
constructed to facilitate 
goods traffic and for shunting wagon to and from compa11ys' mill-Ser-
vices rendered by Railways not under any statutory duty but under prlvale 
agreement-Railways giving notice of enhancement of charges-Whether 
such charges fall within expression 'any other charge' in ss. 29 ( 2) and 
4!(1)(c). Therefore wheth:r complaint alleging charges unreasonable can 
be entertained by Railway Rates Tribunal under s. 41(1)(c). 
The predecessor of the appellant Railway entered into an agreement 
in November, 1933, with the respondent 
company, which had a large 
sugar mill, for the construction of two "assisted sidings" to facilitate the 
nlovenent of goods. iraffic to and from the sugar mill. 
Under the agree-
ment, part of the expenditure was met by the company and it was pro-
vided that the company would pay an annual contribution to the Railways 
for the use of the Railway portion of the siding and in lieu of paying 
separately the interest and maintenance cost of the siding. It was further 
provided that in the event of the contribution not being sufficient to meet 
the cost of the working of the siding, the Railway was entiUed, ou giving 
six months notice, to modify tho contribut'on and charge the company 
such higher amount as it may consider necessary. 
By virtue of an-
other arrangement between the Railway and the Company, at the com-
pany's request, the Railway would arrange for the 
shunting of wagons 
from the Company's factory yard to the Railway lines and for doing so, 
the Railway would charge the company a shunting engine charge calcu-
lated at a fixed rate per hour. 
In February 1958, the Railwav gave notice of increased charge.'l to 
be paid instead of the fixed contribution. It also demanded an increased 
•hunting engine charge. The company thereupon filed a complaint under 
s .. 4l(l)(c) of the Indi~n .Railways Act, 1890 bef~re the Railway Rates 
Tnbunal at MadraJ, cla1mmg that the charges claimed by the Railway 
~ere un!eason~ble and requesting the Tribunal to fix reasonable charges 
in exerc1<e of its powers under s. 41(3) of the Act. The complaint was 
contested by the Railway o~ the grounds (i) .that the charges to which 
the complaint related were tn respect of services that the Railway was 
not under any statutory duty to render to the company and was rendering 
them under private agreement with 
the company; com;equently, 
such 
charges did not fall 
within 
the 
ellpression 
'any 
other charge' 
in 
~· 4!(l)(c) and therefore no complaint could be filed under s. 41 challeng. 
mg !hem on the ground of being unreasonable: (ii) that the burden of 
provmg the charges were unreasonable was on the company which 
had 
not be~n discharged and the Tribunal was not competent to call upon 
the Radway to prove the reasonableness of the charges and to "reduce the 
charges only on the ~round that the Railway had failed to establish their 
reasonableness; and (iii) that the charges demanded by the Railway were 
220 
SUPRl!ME COURT REPORTS 
[1967] 3 S.C.R. 
in fact reasonable and should not be reduced. 
The Tribunal rejected the 
Appellants' contentions and revised the charges 
on 
the 
basis of the 
evidence adduced before it. 
On appeal to this Court. 
HELD : 
(i) The charges in quest'.on were covered by the expression 
"any other charges" ins. 41(1)(c) and the complaint in the present case 
was rightly entertained by the Tribunal. 
The only charges which could be said to relate to the discharge by 
the Railway of its statutory duties would be those fixed under s. 29( I) 
of the Act in respect of a commodity carried by the 
Railway over its 
·own lines. It is clear that a complaint under s. ·U (I) (b) relates to fixa-
tion of a rate relating to charges mentioned in s.29(1), whiles. 41(J)(c) 
relates to a complaint in respect of any 
other charges 
mentioned 
in 
s. 29(2). The expression 
"any other char~e" used in ss. 
29(2) 
and 
4l(I)(c) cannot be given the narrow meanmg of covering a charge in 
respect of the statutory duty of the Railway 
so as to exclude charges 
made or levied for all other services. 
It must necessarily cover charges 
which ar

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