LPA No.214/2009 Page 1 of 4 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LPA 214/2009 & C.M. No.6790/2009 M/s Naryanan Consultancy ..... Appellant Through: Mr. R.P. Bhatt, Sr. Advocate with Mr. S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, Ms. Bina Madhavan, Mr. Shwetank Sailkwal and Ms. Reeta Chandaranna, Advocates. versus Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. & Ors. ..... Respondents Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NEERAJ KISHAN KAUL O R D E R % 12.05.2009 1. The present appeal is preferred against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 23.03.2009. Briefly stated, the facts of the present case are that there were disputes between the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.(IOC) and the Western Railways as regards the question of refund of excess freight charges by the Railways to the IOC. The appellant (original petitioner in the writ petition) claims that IOC entered into a contract with it for consultancy services to secure settlement of such outstanding claims. The appellant as consultant was responsible for pursuing the matter with the Railways and getting IOC’s claims settled. The appellant was entitled to charges for the services rendered in accordance with Schedule-A to the contract. The appellant claims to have followed up a large number of claims and was able to successfully secure settlements of over 14,000 claims. As per the appellant due to its effort IOC was the LPA No.214/2009 Page 2 of 4 beneficiary of large amounts but despite this the refunds as due to him were not paid by IOC. It was contended that having availed of the services and obtained refund of substantial amounts IOC cannot refuse to honour the appellant’s bills. The IOC in its turn contended before the learned Single Judge that it had made payments to the petitioner towards consultancy charges for amounts that it had actually received from the Railways. Since no amount was disbursed towards substantial part of the claims the IOC had filed claims before the Railway Claims Tribunal for the same. It was the case of the IOC that it did not pay consultancy charges to the appellant for the amounts that had not been realized. It was further submitted on behalf of the IOC that for the amounts realized after the consultancy contract ended the appellant could not claim credit as the same were realized through independent efforts of IOC. As per the IOC the appellant was not entitled to any consultancy charges for the amounts realized after the contract had ended. The Western Railways also filed its counter affidavit in the writ petition and stated that disputes between the IOC and itself towards refund of alleged excess claims were sub-judice and pending before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad and that the said tribunal is the most appropriate forum to adjudicate the disputes. 2. The learned Single Judge has rightly held that the facts of the present case disclosed that the question of what is payable to the appellants is not admitted by the respondents. The Railways did not admit the claims and even the IOC’s case was that the Railways had LPA No.214/2009 Page 3 of 4 not settled its claims. However, the disputes between the IOC and Western Railways were pending adjudication. The learned Single Judge, thus, rightly came to the conclusion that in such circumstances it would be imprudent and inexpedient to examine the feasibility and soundness of the appellant’s claim. Further, as correctly held by the learned Single Judge that as regards the claim of the IOC that the appellant was not entitled to consultancy charges for the amounts received after the contract ended and that such amounts were received by independent initiative of IOC were all disputed questions of fact and they would necessarily involve recording of evidence and consideration of arguably voluminous documents and materials, for which Article 226 proceedings would be inappropriate. The learned Single Judge also took note of the fact that there was considerable delay as well in the appellant approaching this Hon’ble Court. 3. The appellant in the writ petition has also made allegations against the Railways and has stated that the Railways were not justified in charging wrong freight charges from the IOC and that the Railways were illegally holding on to the amounts that it was required to refund/disburse to the IOC. Accordingly, relief was also sought against the Railway to notify the correct charge of freight and a direction to the Railways to make payments of 14.7 crores with interest to the IOC. We fail to see as to how the appellant could claim these reliefs in the present petition against the Railways with whom it had no privity of contract if there was arbitrariness in the actions of LPA No.214/2009 Page 4 of 4 the Railways it was for the IOC to take necessary action in accordance with the law. In any case the disputes between the IOC and the Railways are pending before the Railway Claims Tribunal. The appellant can not pursue the matter on behalf of the IOC against the Railways by way of the present writ petition out of which the appeal arises. 4. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the present appeal must fail. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. Pending application also stands disposed of. CHIEF JUSTICE NEERAJ KISHAN KAUL, J. MAY 12, 2009 RS