A
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
v.
MIS. SHARMA COAL CO.
MAY 10, 1996
B
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATIANAIK, JJ.]
Railways:
Preferential Traffic Scheme-Classification of priority articles for car-
C riage-Sponsored coal movement included in Category 'C' priority--Non-
sponsored coal included in Category 'E' prio1ity-Priorities re-detem1ined
w.e.f 1989 and non-sponsored coal deleted from priority Scheme-High Court
directing the Railways to keep unutilised wagons at the disposal of non-
priority articles for carriage-Appeal by Railways-Held, there is no impedi-
ment in the way of the administration to allot the unutilised wagons as
D directed by High Court, instead of keeping them idle.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 9059 of
1996.
From the Judgment and Order dated 30.7.90 of the Assam High
E Court in C.R. No. 1153 of 1989.
F
G
C.B. Babu, B. Krishna Prasad and P. Parmeshwaran for the Appel-
lants.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
Leave granted.
Though the respondents have been served, none appears either in
person or through the counsel. We have heard counsel for the appellant.
This appeal arises from the order of the Division Bench of the
Guwahati High Court in a batch of writ petitions being Civil Rule No.
1153/89 and batch passed on dated July 30, 1990. The Railway administra-
tion had prepared a preferential traffic scheme (PTS), by general order
No. 71 categorising the priority articles for carriage by railways and allotted
H different priorities which are made in alphabetic orders A to E. Sponsored
850
...
U.0.1. v. SHARMA COAL CO.
851
coal movement was mentioned in Category C priority and priority E would A
include non-sponsored coal. Subsequently by proceedings dated March, 1,
1989 the Railways modified its earlier scheme and issued general PTS
Order No. 77 with effect from April 1, 1989 under which priorities were
re-determined. It would appear that subsequently non-priorities/coal item
E was deleted from the priority scheme. When the respondents and others
challenged its validity on the anvil of Art. 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, the
Division Bench of the High Court without disturbing the validity of the
order had given direction observing that after all the priorities enumerated
in the scheme are exhausted and if the wagons remains unutilised, the
wagons may be kept at the disposal of non-priority articles for carriage.
Thus this appeal came to be filed by special leave.
B
c
It is seen that in order No. 75 priorities A to E were made which
included sponsored coal within the meaning of the order and non-spon-
sored coal within the meaning of the order and non-sponsored coal
provided in priority E for allotment of wagon. With regard to non-priority
item E, it subsequently deleted as mentioned in paragraph E of the special D
leave petition which reads as "the Order No. 77 relates to PTS for allotment
of wagons which came into force from 16.7.86, but non-sponsored coal
referred to in priority E of PTS No. 75 was removed". It would thus be
seen that non-priority coal came to be removed from the priorities men-
tioned in Items A to E. Therefore, the High Court obviously was of the E
intention to direct that if after the wagons allotted for movement to priority
articles remained available, the same may be allotted for non-priority
articles for carriage. We do not think that there is any impediment in the
way of administration to give such allotment, instead of keeping them idle.
It would be in commercial interest of the Railway administration.
F
The appeal is accordingly disposed of. No. costs.
R.P.
Appeal disposed of .
Lex