PETITIONER:
BANSAL & CO. & ANR.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT20/12/1985
BENCH:
MUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (J)
BENCH:
MUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (J)
PATHAK, R.S.
CITATION:
1986 AIR 452 1985 SCR Supl. (3) 880
1986 SCC (1) 556 1985 SCALE (2)1457
ACT:
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 coordination between Coal
Controller and General Managers.
HEADNOTE:
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
recommended by the Coal Controller or the State Government
Director, (Movement) Railways.
In Viklad Coal Merchant, Patiala v. U.O.I. [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 for
certain types of coal and or in accordance with the
programme and movements sponsored or recommended by the Coal
Controller and/or any Committee appointed by him; (c) or it
is sponsored or recommended by the State
881
Government and/or other recommending authorities and
accepted by the Railway Administrations; (d) or it is
sponsored or recommended 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 time, and
that stoppage at way-side stations for the booking of 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 they Civil Rule and directed the Railways to allot
wagons in priority ‘C’ to the sponsored traders only when
they fulfil the five conditions set out in Viklad 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’.
Pursuant to the aforesaid order the Railways had been
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 was contended before the Supreme Court that (1)
those sponsorers who had to load coal from stations which
are not collieries should not be given priorities in
priority ‘C’ and, (2) the Preferential Traffic Schedule
enjoins that the movement of Traffic Schedule should be
controlled by Controller of Movements and not by the general
Managers of Regional Railways and that this was not
canalised by the Controller of Movements.
Disposing of the writ petition and the special leave
petitions,
882
^
HELD : 1. It is true that the railways have permitted
movement of coal from nominated railway stations which are
not at all collieries. This had to be done in the interest
of equitable distribution of coal in the whole country.
Otherwise, the State of Meghalaya which had no railway
stations at the colliery sidings will not be able to
transport any coal for the need of Punjab or the North. If
there is coal in Meghalaya and there is need in Punjab and
the North then the scheme should be so read that even the
nominated stations in Assam, nominated by high authorities
of railways, should be treated for the purpose of the scheme
as colliery sidings for Khasi coal in those areas. This, the
Railways did prior to the order of the High Court. This was
proper interpretation of the judgment of the Supreme Court
in Viklad’s case, and this should be adhered to. [890 G-H;
891 A-B]
2. The area of Meghalaya falls within the Assam Fields.
The list of zonal rationalisation of movement of coal from
different coal fields suggests that such zonal
rationalisation must be controlled by Central Authorities
and not by General Managers of different Railways. The
movement of such coal must be such that it should be
coordinated by the Central Authorities like the Coal
Controller and cannot be done haphazardly by the General
Managers of the different regions. In future, movement of
coal should be sanctioned by the Zonal Managers of Railways
with the prior consultation and concurrence of the Coal
Controller. This can be achieved quickly if intimation of
the same is sent to the Controller and no objection is
received immediately, it will be deemed to have been
sanctioned.
In the instant cases, where requisitions have already
been issued and sanctioned with the knowledge of the
Controller of Coal then there has been sufficient
compliance. [892 A-F]
3(i) The stations nominated by the railway in Assam and
Meghalaya Zones should be treated as stations at colliery
sidings in terms of the directions given in Viklad’s case.
3(ii) the allotment of wagons made by the Zonal
Managers should be adhered to so far as these have already
been made and coal should be loaded but in future Zonal
Manager should follow the procedure in making allotments as
indicated herein.
3(iii) in cases where the General Managers sanction
movements of coal, immediate intimation should be given to
the controller of Movements and vice versa. These two
authorities must act in harmony, and in consultation. [892
G-H; 893 A]
883
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave Petition
(Civil) Nos. 632 & 3386 of 1985.
From the Judgment and Order dated 11.12.1984 of the
Assam Nagaland, Meghalaya, Manipur and Tripura High Court in
Civil Rule No. 619 of 1984.
WITH
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 43 of 1985.
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.)
S.C. Gupta, and K.K. Mohan for the Petitioners.
Govind Das, N.R. Chowdhary, O.P. Sharma, Anil Katyar,
R.N. Poddar and C.V. Subba Rao for the Respondents.
Soumen Ghose and N.R. Choudhary for the Intervener in
W.P. No. 43 of 1985.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J. Special Leave Petition Nos. 632
and 3386 of 1985 by M/s Bansal & Co. and M/s Orient
Distributors respectively and the Writ Petition No. 43 of
1985 by M/s Bansal & Co. under article 32 of the
Constitution challenge the validity of the order issued by
the North East Frontier Railway dated 21st December, 1984
whereby the said railways sought to implement the judgment
and order of the High Court of Gauhati in Civil Rule No. 619
of 1984.
By the said order, it was held that M/s Vicky Coal
Concern, Calcutta as well as M/s Mangalam Enterprises were
entitled to priority ‘E’ and not to priority ‘C’. None of
the parties, it was declared by the Gauhati High Court by
its order passed on 11th December, 1984, fulfilled the
requisite conditions for obtaining priority ’C' of the
Preferential Traffic Schedule of the Railways (for short
PTS). It was declared also that there could not be any
discrimination whatsoever between any trader and consumer
whether privately sponsored trader or private consumer in
priority ‘E’ and that they should be allotted and supplied
wagons strictly in terms of the provision of Rule 201 of the
Goods Traffic Rules (for short ‘the rules’) for acceptance,
carriage and delivery of general goods issued by Indian
Railways from time to time, and in order to get priority
‘C’, they had to
884
fulfil the five conditions enjoined in the decision of the
Court in Viklad Coal Merchant, Patiala, Etc. v. Union of
India & Ors., [1984] 1 S.C.R. 657.
In order to appreciate the position, it is necessary to
state that there is in existence a rationalisation scheme
for movement of coal, booking of coal is allowed from North-
Eastern Railways to difficult States only when the cam is
sponsored by the respective State Government. However, coal
is allowed to move freely upto the stations on east of
Siliguri as per said Rationalisation Scheme.
From 1980 onwards certain High Courts had granted
injunction orders on railways to allow booking of coals to
various State in priority ‘B’ and ‘C’ without sponsoring
certificates. The Railways had tried to comply with those
interim orders although in certain cases, courts were moved
by the Railways for vacation of the interim orders. Movement
of coal to various states took place under priority ‘B’ and
‘C’ during the pendency of such interim orders.
In Viklad Coal Merchant, Patiala Etc. Etc. v. Union of
India & Ors. (supra), the question was considered by this
Court. In that case, the petitions in group of petitions
under article 32 of the Constitution were coal merchants
who, according to them, had been denied the use of railways
for transport of coal from various coal fields and way-side
station to their destination by certain orders of the
railways which were described as illegal and
unconstitutional by those petitions. The court examined
these contentions and came to the conclusion that section 27
of the Indian Railways Act cast a duty on the railway
administration to arrange for receiving and forwarding
traffic without unreasonable delay and without partiality.
Section 28 of the said Act prohibited the railway
administration from giving undue or unreasonable preference
or advantage to any particular person or railway
administration or any particular description of traffic.
Section 27A was inserted in the Act after 1950 to given
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 or of in
such other goods or class of goods as may be specified in
the order.
The Government of India, Ministry of Railways issued an
order dated 1st April, 1972 containing its decision to add
abbreviation ‘GX’ below the abbreviation ‘G’ in the list of
885
abbreviation at page 14, Chapter VI of the IRCA Alphabetical
list of Railway Stations in India and asking the railway
administration to decide and notify the names of stations to
which this new provision would apply. Putting abbreviation
‘GX’ against a station meant that the station was not open
for outward booking of coal, coal shale etc. in wagon loads.
Pursuant to this order, the abbreviation ‘GX’ was appended
to all way-side stations in the coal-belt. Thereafter
Government of India, Ministry of Railways by its order dated
27th April, 1972 revised Rules 1 and 2 of the Eastern
Railway Coal Traffic Part I. The revised rules provided,
inter alia, that all traffic in coal etc. in wagon loads
will be loaded only from colliery sidings, coke oven plants
and washeries on the Eastern Railway, but coal in wagon
would not be permitted at the stations serving these
colliery washeries.
In exercise of the powers conferred under section 27A
of the Railways Act, the Union of India, Ministry of
Railways issued a Preferential Traffic Schedule. This
schedule prescribed five priorities i.e. priorities ‘A’ to
‘E’ with inter se priorities 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 falls under priority ‘C’ (iii) which provides
for movement of coal from collieries in accordance with
programmes and movements sponsored or recommended by the
Coal Controller and/or any Committee appointed by him and/or
the State Government and/or other recommending authorities
and accepted by the Railways Administrations and/or
Director, Movement (Railways), Calcutta, and in accordance
with the Zonal Scheme applicable to each field and the
principles of transport rationalisation in force from time
to time. Priority ‘E’ is a residuary clause and also
involves movement of coal from collieries.
As contended by M/s Bansal & Co., certain conditions
had to be fulfilled for getting priority ‘C’ (iii) in
accordance with the interpretation put by this Court in the
aforesaid decision in Viklad Coal Merchant’s case, it is
necessary to set out priority ‘C’ (iii) as appears in the
Preferential Traffic Schedule which is as follows:
“(iii) Coal from collieries in accordance with
commodity quotas laid down from time to time for
certain types of coal and/or in accordance with
programmes and movements sponsored or recommended
by the Coal Controller and/or any Committee
appointed by
886
him and/or the State Governments and/or other
recommending authorities and accepted by the
Railways Administrations and/or Director, Movement
(Railways), Calcutta, and in accordance with the
Zonal Scheme applicable to each field and the
principles of transport rationalisation in force
from time to time. A list of sponsoring
authorities authorised to sponsor coal movements
in this item is given in Annexure ‘B’.
(b) Besides the sponsoring authorities mentioned
in Annexure ‘B’ movement of Coal may be sponsored
by “any other authority who may be appointed by
the Government from time to time”.
(c) Recommendation for allotment of wagons by a
sponsoring authority or acceptance of
recommendations or issue of sanction by the
Railway Administration/Director Movement
(Railways) does not guarantee allotment/supply of
wagons. Allotment/supply of wagons would be
regulated according to operational exigencies from
time to time. Allotment/supplies of wagons may be
cancelled or reduced by Director, Movement
(Railways).
(d) The period of validity of programmes/sanctions
for rakes/piecemeal movement may be laid down from
time to time by Railway Administration/Director,
Movement (Railways). The validity of
programme/sanction does not guarantee
allotment/supply of wagons.
(e) Inter se seniority of the class of consumers
would be laid down from time to time by Railway
Administration Director, Movement (Railways) and
may be altered/modified from time to time. Within
the same class or category of consumers seniority
may be fixed from time to time depending upon the
operational and other considerations. Railway
Administration/Director Movement (Railways) may
permit distress allotments/supply of wagons when
considered necessary. Nothing laid down herein
shall be considered as contrary to notes (a) to
(b) appearing under Priority ‘E’.”
Annexure B mentions the State Collieries - about 27 in
number who are sponsoring authorities to sponsor coal
movements.
In Viklad Coal Merchant’s case, the petitioners therein
who were coal merchants alleged that sum total of various
887
restrictions including one dated 1st April, 1972 introducing
abbreviation ‘GX’ and the Preferential Traffic Schedule
specifying priorities under section 27A(1) of the Act in
their cumulative effect imposed a total ban on transport of
coal by the railways at the instance and their action was
violative of articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
Other contentions were also raised. Discussing the need for
the controlling movement of coal and desirability of
channalising coal for public sector by sponsoring agencies
and accepting that railways was subject to constitutional
check on the monopoly, the court came to the conclusion that
instructions issued under section 27A were neither violative
of the Act nor the provisions of the Act. i.e. section 28
and 27A violative of articles 14 or 19 of the Constitution.
It was emphasised that a developing country with mixed
economy and economic planning had certain targets to
achieve. These targets were planned in advance and the
economic activity was geared to the achievement of these
targets. If the required resources necessary for achieving
the targets were readily available, no difficulty would
arise. But a developing country had to so distribute its
scarce resources to achieve and accomplish desired targets.
This situation is bound to lead to a gap between demand and
supply or various facilities. Transport was one of such.
Once there was a gap between the demand for transport
service offered by the railway and the supply of the
service, the resources being not sufficient to meet with all
existing demands, the scarce resources would have to be
equitably distributed keeping in view the planned target.
The equitable distribution would necessarily necessitate
imposing of reasonable restrictions and according of
priorities. Then this Court analysed the Preferential
Traffic Schedule of the list of sponsoring authorities and
came to the conclusion that the list indicated that the
Central and State Governments as well as highly placed
Central and State Government officers had been appointed as
sponsoring authorities in respect of coal required by
different area and industries. This Court therefore rejected
the contention that the setting up of recommending
authorities in priority ‘C’ ultra vires section 27A of the
Act. This Court observed that transport of coal is according
to a plan drawn up a year in advance. Further this plan was
subject to the decision of the Standing Linkage Committee.
Every meticulous detail was worked out in advance. A daily
loading of maximum number of wagons was pre-planned. All the
steps indicated therein were arranged including the
abbreviation ‘GX’ in effective implementation of plan
movement of coal. Therefore stoppage at way-side station of
the booking of coal in wagons could not be described as
violative of section 28 of the Act or indicated unreasonable
restrictions violative of article 19(1)(g) of the
Constitution.
888
Dealing with the Preferential Traffic Schedule, this
Court dealt with different priorities and analysing priority
‘C’ which gave the movement of coal to sponsored dealers
priority, this Court observed at pages 677-678 of the report
as follows:
“Priority ‘C’ (iii) which deals with coal provides
for transport of coal from collieries to various
parts in India. It was subjected to varying
constructions. It has been extracted earlier. In
order to be eligible for obtaining allotment of
wagon under Priority ‘C’, it is necessary for the
person indenting the wagon to satisfy the various
conditions specified therein. They are: (i) that
the coal is to be loaded from the collieries; (ii)
that the coal to be loaded is in conformity with
the commodity quotas laid down from time to time
for certain types of coal and/or in accordance
with the programmes and movements sponsored or
recommended by the Coal Controller and/or any
Committee appointed by him; (iii) or it is
sponsored or recommended by the State Government
and/or other recommending authorities and accepted
by the Railways Administrations; (iv) or it is
sponsored or recommended by Director, Movement
(Railways), Calcutta; (v) and it must be in
accordance with the Zonal Scheme applicable to
each field and the principles of transport
rationalisation in force from time to time. In
order to comply with the pre-conditions for
eligibility under Priority ‘C’, a list of
sponsoring authority authorised to sponsor coal
movements is drawn up and is set out in Annexure
‘B’ to the Preferential Traffic Schedule. These
general conditions are further subject to Notes A
to E. Why such an exhaustive and detailed
provision is made is not difficult to answer? Coal
forms 32% of the total transport of goods handled
by the Railways. On an average, more than 10,000
wagons will have to be allotted daily for
transport of coal. Coal being a primary source of
energy used by heavy industries, electricity
generating plants, steel plants as also cooking
fuel used in the remotest parts of the country, it
is necessary to handle its transport with
scientific precision. Therefore, there is a prior
planning about a year in advance drawn up by the
Director, Movement (Railways) setting out Zonal
Scheme of distribution applicable to each coal-
field force from time to time. The purpose
underlying
889
setting up of sponsoring and recommending
authorities is to ascertain the needs of various
regions of the country who is their respective
regions would be in close and intimate contact
with the consumers of coal both industrial and
individual. Even though power has been conferred
on them to sponsor or recommend indenting of
wagons of coal from collieries this network of
sponsoring and recommending authorities are
subject to the Zonal Scheme applicable to each
coal field and the principles of transport
rationalisation in force from time to time. The
nerve centre is the Director, Movement (Railways)
of all the activities connected with transport of
coal. In addition to this the Government has set
up a Standing Linkage Committee in the Department
of coal in the Ministry of Energy. This Committee
assesses the link and requirement of particular
source of coal. The Committee keeps in view the
requirements of such major industries and
establishments using coal like the Railways,
thermal power stations, fertiliser plants, cement
plants, steel plants, textile factories, chemical
industries and the like. This very narration would
show that if there is disturbance in regular
supply of coal to this priority sector resulting
in their closure, there would be a ripple
effecting various ancillary industries creating a
major dislocation in the national economy and
escalating haunted spectre of lay off and
unemployment. That is why planning is undertaken
every year in advance and but for any emergency it
is considered inadvisable to disturb the advance
Planning because any such disturbance results in
serious dislocation of this primary source of
energy being distributed all over the country
keeping in view national priorities.”
The first condition indicated in priority ‘C’ (iii) is
the coal to be loaded from collieries. This is one of the
conditions. It has however been found and it is further
stated and admitted by the railways that the railways had
been allotting wagons and rakes to its sponsored traders
even after the judgment of this 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. This
was not pointed out to the court in Viklad’s
890
case. One party M/s Manglam Enterprises – the respondent to
SLP 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 other High Court,
namely the Calcutta High Court. The Gauhati High Court
passed its order in the aforesaid Civil Rule set out
hereinbefore asking the Railways to allot wagons in priority
‘C’ to the sponsored traders only when they fulfilled the
five conditions set out in the judgment of this Court as set
out hereinbefore, otherwise the registration would be made
under ‘E’ priority and allotment of wagons rakes shall
strictly be according to the seniority of indents at the
booking stations as per rule 201 of the Goods Tariff. It was
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’.
In pursuance of this order, the Railways have been
permitting loading of coal by those having sponsorship
certificate and others as per various High Courts orders
under item ‘E’ including M/s Bansal & Co even though the
indents might have been registered under item ‘C’. This has
resulted in the present special leave petition as well as
the Writ Petitions.
As mentioned hereinbefore one of the conditions is that
coal should be loaded from collieries and this condition is
not fulfilled in the case of Khasi coal as there is no
colliery in Meghalaya State unless the nominated stations in
Assam are treated as colliery sidings for Khasi coal.
Railways have issued a notification to that effect.
Two contentions were urged before us that those
sponsorers who had to load coal from stations which are not
collieries should not be given priorities in priority ‘C’.
Secondly, the Preferential Traffic Schedule enjoins that the
movement of Traffic Schedule should be controlled by
Controller of Movements and not by the General Managers of
the regional Railways.
So far as the first contention is concerned, it is true
that railways had permitted movement of coal from nominated
railway stations which are not at collieries. This had to be
done in the interest of equitable distribution of coal to
the whole country. Otherwise State of Meghalayas which had
no railway stations at the colliery sidings will not be able
to transport any coal for the need of Punjab or North. This
would be improper if there is coal in Meghalaya and there is
need in Punjab and North then the
891
scheme should be so read that even the nominated stations in
Assam, nominated by high authorities of railways, should be
treated for the purpose of the scheme as colliery sidings
for Khasi coal in those areas. This Railways did prior to
the order of the Gauhati High Court. This was proper
interpretation of the judgment of this Court keeping in view
the rationale of the said decision and this should be
adhered to.
The second contention was that this was not canalised
by the Controller of Movements. It is true that the
Controller of Movements who had been general idea of the
scheme would know all of the movements. But this is a
sponsored coal and General Managers of the Railways would
also know about the movements of coal.
Mr. Ghosh appearing for some of the respondents
submitted that the Preferential Traffic System was supported
and reservation in priority ‘C’ was sustained subject to the
conditions that the coal must be booked from the collieries
and further urged that where in situations such coal could
not be booked from the collieries, there was no warrant in
the decision of this Court in Viklad’s case to permit as has
been done in this case loading of coal from nominated
stations by railways. We are unable to sustain the
submission made on behalf of the respondents on this ground.
It is true that this Court in the aforesaid decision
permitted the preferential traffic system on the basis of
priority ‘C’ and one of the main conditions of priority ‘C’
was that booking of coal must be from the collieries. But
the situation like the one we have before us is that in
areas having coal fields or having excess quantity of coal
available for use in other parts of the country, having no
railway stations in the collieries cannot supply coal to
those places in Punjab and North where coal is required.
This would be contrary to the system of equitable and
reasonable readjustment of rights between the different
sectors, upon the whole basis of which the decision of this
Court rested in Viklad’s case, unless the nominated
stations, stations nominated by the Railways are treated as
‘railway stations’ in collieries in the spirit of Viklad’s
case. We read it accordingly. We may further note that there
was no allegation that the power of nomination so far has in
any way been misused.
The second objection was and there is some substance in
that, that there is a zonal schedule and principle of
controlled transportation should be borne in mind. In this
connection our
892
attention was drawn to page 177 of Special Leave Petition
No. 632 of 1985 indicating the zonal rationalisation scheme
for movement originating from different coal fields, where
item (I) mentions Assam Fields. The area of Meghalaya falls
within the Assam Fields. The list of zonal rationalisation
of movement of coal from different coal fields suggests that
such zonal rationalisation must be controlled by Central
authorities and not by General Managers of different
Railways. This was vital for free and equitable distribution
and was necessary for the ceilings for the year 1985 to be
observed by sponsoring authorities for the core sectors by
the Central and State sponsoring authorities for non-core
sectors and these were indicated in Annexures 1A, 1B and 1C
of the said scheme. It was further submitted that in
Viklad’s case at page 668 of the report, this Court
emphasised that coal loading is a matter of huge dimensions
and the Department of Coal, Ministry of Energy had set up a
standing linkage committee. The movement of such coal must
be such that it should be coordinated by the Central
authorities like the Coal Controller and cannot be done
haphazardly by the General Managers of the different
regions. As indicated before, there is some substance in
this. But if the movements are coordinated and for this the
Controller of Coal as well as General Managers, in case one
authority requisitions wagons and intimates the other, there
should be sufficient compliance. In this case where
requisitions have already been issued and sanctioned with
the knowledge of the Controller of Coal (because the
procedure followed postulated that every item was intimated
to him and was not objected), then there has been sufficient
compliance. In future movements of coal should be sanctioned
by the Zonal Managers of Railways with the prior
consultation and concurrence of the Coal Controller. This
can be achieved quickly if intimation of the same is sent to
the Controller and no objection is received immediately, it
will be deemed to have been sanctioned. So far as these
cases are concerned, the indents for which wagons have been
issued and which were cancelled due to the judgment of the
Gauhati High Court should forthwith be rescinded and M/s
Bansal & Co. and other similarly situated like them should
be permitted to load the coal in wagons in pursuance of the
wagons issued in their favour. We order as follows:-
1. that the stations nominated by the railways in Assam
and Meghalaya Zones should be treated as stations at
colliery sidings in terms of the directions given in
Viklad’s case
2. that the allotment of wagons made by the Zonal
Managers
893
should be adhered to so far as these have already been made
and coal should be loaded but in future Zonal Managers
should follow the procedure in making allotments indicated
in this judgment.
3. that in cases where the General Managers sanction
movements of coal, immediate intimation should be given to
the controller of Movements and vice versa. These two
authorities must act in harmony, and in consultation.
4. that except these directions there will be no order
on the Special Leave Petitions as well as no order on the
Writ Petition and these are disposed of accordingly.
Parties will pay and bear their own costs.
M.L.A. Petitions disposed of.
894