Case: Jaipur Udyog Limited Vs. Union of India &amp; Others

2. The material facts are as follows. Jaipur Udyog Limited, appellant in each of these appeals, owns a cement factory at Swaimadhopur a station on the Western Railway and a limestone quarry at Phallodi at a distance of 24 Kilometers from the factory. Phallodi is about 8 kilometers from Rawanina Dungar station on the Western Railway. There is a siding connecting the main railway line at Rawanja Dungar station with the quarry at Phallodi. The siding is maintained by the railway administration on payment of charges by the appellant. On November 22, 1965 the appellant filed a complaint under Section 41 of the Act registered as Complaint No. 6 of 1965, alleging that the charges levied by the Railway administration were unreasonable. Civil Appeal No. 1479 of 1974 arises out of this complaint. By its order dated January 31, l969 the Tribunal disposed of the complaint reducing the maintenance, siding and the supplementary charges. On December 1, 1971 the railway administration applied under Section 41A of the Act for revision of the earlier order of the Tribunal praying that the earlier order be revoked or a fresh order made refixing the rates and charges. Civil Appeal No. 1547 of 1974 has its origin in a similar complaint, registered as Complaint No. 7 of l965 made by the appellant on November 18, 1965, in respect of similar charges made by the railway administration for the placement of wagons on and their removal from the railway lines within the appellants premises and for maintenance of these lines. In this case also the Tribunal had reduced the charges by its order dated July 30, 1970. The railway administration applied under Section 41A of the Act for variation or revocation of the said order. However, at the hearing of these applications under Section 41A, the railway administration prayed for complete revocation of the previous orders which the Tribunal allowed.It appears from the impugned orders that the Tribunal did not find sufficient material for refixing the charges and vary the previous orders accordingly.The Tribunal held that since the previous orders were made the cost of the operations as well as the wages of the staff have gone up appreciably and there has thus been a material change in the circumstances on which the said orders were based. On the application under Sectionarising out of complaint No. 6 of 1965 the Tribunal found, as regards the maintenance charges, that the formula on the basis of which the charges had been fixed in the previous order involved many arbitrary assumptions and was of no help in estimating reasonable maintenance charges for the siding. The Tribunal further held that the "payable cost of siding charges" had increased and found that the basis adopted in the previous order for fixing the siding charges was of "no significance." With regard to supplementary charges, the Tribunal noted that in the earlier order the supplementary charges were "fixed on the basis of the percentage, in force for similar charges on freight" and that there being no supplementary charges on freight with effect from April 1, 1970, the circumstances upon which the charges under this head were fixed by the earlier order had undergone a material change on the other application under S. 41A, directed against the ordercomplaint No. 7 of 1965 the Tribunal recorded similar findings on themaintenance charges and supplementary charges fixed by the said order. Having found that there has been material change in the circumstances justifying the exercise of the revisional jurisdiction under Section 41A of Act, the Tribunal considered which of the two alternatives permitted by Section 41A, variation or revocation of the previous orders would be appropriate. As stated already, the Tribunal held that on the evidence before it, it was not in a position to vary the earlier order by refixing the charges.

Court's reasoning:
The decision in Upper Doab Sugar Mills case (supra) does not arise for consideration in these appeals in which we are concerned only with the propriety of the two orders made under Section 41A of the Act. We do not also think that it would be more advantageous to the appellant if the matters were remanded to the Tribunal for being reheard, especially when the railway administration has admittedly refixed the charges.