CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench(2013) 05 JH CK 0039

Balajee Electrosteels Ltd. vs Union of India and Others

Jharkhand High Court · Decided on 3 May 2013 · Citation: (2013) 2 AJR 841

HON’BLE JUDGES
Aparesh Kumar Singh, J
RESULT
Disposed Off
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition (C) No. 6188 of 2007

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

3 paragraphs · 325 words

Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.—The petitioner has approached this Court being aggrieved by a letter dated 7.9.2007, Annexure-5, issued by the respondent No. 5, the Divisional Railway Manager, East Central Railway, Dhanbad whereunder a sum of rupees 1,65,453.00/- was raised as overloading charges against the petitioner for the entire weight of commodity carried beyond permissible limit for the entire distance travelled by the train from originating station to the destination station irrespective of point of detection of overloading without considering the fact that the petitioner is a consignee and he had paid all the amount to the consignor, respondent No. 8. As per statements made in para 8 of the counter-affidavit of the respondents, the punitive charge bill of Rs. 1,65,453/- had been withdrawn. However, it is the case of the petitioner that the commodities in question are still lying in the custody of the respondents on account of interim order dated 19.12.2007 passed by this Court wherein it was indicated that till further order, the articles seized shall not be auction sold. Counsel for the petitioner submits that for the aforesaid limited grievance, he may be allowed to approach the respondent No. 5 for needful.

2.

In these circumstances, without going into the merit of the controversy for the limited grievance, which appears to have survived, the writ petitioner is allowed to approach the respondent No. 5 for release of the seized materials in question. On receipt of such representation after verification of necessary facts and documents the respondent No. 5 shall take a informed decision and pass a speaking order in accordance with law within a period of six weeks thereafter, which shall also be communicated to the petitioner. In case the petitioner is found to be entitled to the seized articles, the same should also be released within the said period.

3.

This writ petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid observation and direction. I.A. No. 1225 of 2008 also stands disposed of.