AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rice Millers Association, Palakol, a registered Association comprised of 29 members who are rice millers operating from Palakol town and formed for the purpose of protecting the interests of its members, has filed this writ petition seeking a direction to the South Central Railway to provide wagons to the petitioner Association and its members for the purpose of exporting rice to North Frontier Areas of Assam and Nagaland as per the seniority of their indents or in the alternative to follow the rotational system without according any preference to Dwarapudi or any other station in the supply of wagons and for incidental declaration that the action of the respondents in not following the order of seniority of indents and in giving preference to Dwarapudi station is bereft of jurisdiction, arbitrary and discriminatory.
The averments in support of the relief claimed, in brief, are as under:
(a) There is a large volume of production of paddy and consequently a large rumber of rice mills in Palakol town who have purchased the paddy from the farmers. They mill it for rice and export the same to the other States within the country as well as within the State of Andhra Pradesh. Palakol town is one of the important centers in the State for wholesale trade in rice. Each year the rice traders of Palakol town, members of the petitioner Association, have been exporting rice in large quantities to various States and have the highest record of such export. In pursuance of their trade the petitioner has been placing indents on the Railway authorities on behalf of its members for supply of wagons for export of rice.
(b) Members of the petitioner Association have been granted permits for export of rice to other states including to Assam and Nagaland and the permits stipulate a lime frame. Non-supply of rice within the time frame will deprive the members of the rights arising under the permits. The State authorities under the appropriate Control Orders have issued export permits to the rice millers in respect of levy free rice after collecting the levy rice at the controlled price.
(c) The availability of wagons being inadequate to the demand for the same, prior to 28-5-1999, the Railway authorities used to supply wagons to various rice millers in the State of Andhra Pradesh for the purpose of export on the basis of first come first served on what has come to be known as the (date of registration of indents) system. However, with effect from 13-5-1999 pursuant to a Circular dated 18-5-1999 issued with the approval of the competent authority by the Chief Operations Manager, SCR, a system of rotational allotment has been introduced under which each Railway Station from which rice is exported is provided with one train consisting of 40 wagons in its turn under the rotation system irrespective of demand for the wagons from the particular station.
(d) However, in violation of the aforesaid rational system, pursuant to the minutes of a meeting held on 21-7-1999 between the 2nd respondent Chief Freight Transport Manager, SCR, Secunderabad, and the representatives of the rice millers associations, the rotational system ordained by the policy guidelines dated 18-5-1999 has been modified and as a consequence of the modification 1/3rd of the total quantity of the wagons earmarked for the State are being provided to Dwarapudi station resulting in a diminution of the availability of the wagons to the rice millers exporting from other stations including Palakol station and thereby affecting the members of the petitioner Association.
(e) The modification effected by the 2nd respondent resulting in a weightage to Dwarapudi station has been done behind the back of the petitioner Association and without notice to it and other similarly effected. The petitioner association has not been afforded any opportunity before effecting modification. The preference given to Dwarapudi station is also irrational.
(f) Pursuant to the policy evolved at the so called meeting on 21-7-1999 the 2nd respondent issued a circular dated 10-8-1999 setting out fresh principles for effectuating the rotational system whereby Dwarapudi station has been granted a priority on the basis of its loading potentiality, demand and previous performance, factors which are inconsistent with the guidelines set out in Circular dated 18-5-1999 and also irrational. The relevant facts in respect of other stations, including Palakol, have not been taken into consideration. The export potentiality and previous performance of Palakol station is in fact higher than that of Dwarapudi station.
(g) Members of the petitioner Association have placed indent of 400 wagons to export 11600 Metric Tons of rice sine 7-7-1999 and even a single indent has not so far been cleared. The Railways owe a statutory duty to provide transport facility to the people who indent earlier. The permits in favour of the members of the petitioner Association would expire by 18-11-1999 and unless the respondents are directed to follow the order of seniority of indents or follow the rotational system as originally set out in the circular dated 18-5-1999, the members of the petitioner Association will be deprived of their due share of right to export before the expiry of permits.
On the aforesaid averments, contentious and allegations, the relief already adverted to is claimed.
The respondent-Railways have filed counter affidavit, inter alia in brief contending as under:
(a) That the introduction of rotational system and giving weightage to Dwarapudi station for movement of wagons to destinations of North Frontier Railways was done only after conducting a meeting on 21-7-1999 with the representatives of Rice Millers Associations of all the Districts in Andhra Pradesh including those from Palakol. The loading potential and past performance and track record of rice loaded for NF Railways destinations from Dwarapudi and other stations during the period from 1-4-1996 to 21-7-1999 disclose that from Dwarapudi station 67% office was dispatched to NF areas, while from alt other stations in the State put together including Palakol it was only 33%, of this Palakol loaded only 0.85% of the total rice dispatched to the destinations of NF Railways from the State of Andhra Pradesh.
(b) That the petitioner''s contention that Palakol has highest record of exporting rice to other States is incorrect. Even in respect of destinations through out India, loading of trade rice from Dwarapudi and Bikkavolu is much higher than Palakoi.
(c) That the contention that the petitioner Association has been placing indents with the Railways is incorrect. Indents are placed and have been placed by individual merchants and the association is merely requesting to club the indents and expedite supply of wagons. In this view of the matter the petitioner Association has no locus standi to institute this writ petition and claim the relief therein.
(d) That the Railways are not concerned with the aspect of issue and expiry of permits in favour of individual rice millers. The permits have been issued and are issued in consultation with the Railway administration and no commitment has been made by the Railways either to the traders or to the State Government that empty wagons will be supplied to meet all the demands for rice export within the currency of the permits. The petitioners are free to obtain permits for exporting rice to other States by other modes of transport such as road, sea or air if sufficient wagons could not be made available within the available time.
(e) That more than 98% of the export of rice by rail by the members of the petitioner association has been to States other than NF States and wagons have been supplied more or less freely and adequately for this purpose, subject, of course, to availability and operational constraints without considering the oldest date of registration system.
(f) That the demand on railways for supply of wagons is for a plurality of purposes including for other essential commodities like fertilizers, sugar, barytes, etc., and the demand for these items is also in respect of NF Railway destinations.
(g) That prioritisation of demand and supply rationally related to such demand is an area of essential policy choice by the Railways which has been rationally catered to and is thus not susceptible to interference within the limited scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
(h) That in view of the provision of Rule 201(10), Chapter II of Goods Tariff No.41 Part I, Vol.1 of traffic offered by movement by railways have been categorized into 5 priorities A to E and each of the earlier priorities gets preference over the later. As per this prioritisation non-standard foodgrains of trade account (rice, wheat etc.) falls under priority ''D'', vide Clause 4.3 of the Preferential Tariff Schedule General Order No.78 issued by the Government of India. As per the extant guidelines contained in the above, once an empty wagon is supplied to a particular station for loading, the empty should be supplied for loading commodities having higher priority irrespective of date of registration of commodities having lower priority and within the same priority the empty should be supplied to the indenters whose date of registration of indent is the oldest.
(i) That in view of the constraints in NF Railway destinations (constraints such as want of terminals, godowns, availability of sufficient number of tracks, bad road conditions and overriding defence requirements), supply of empties is governed by a quota fixed by the Railway Board from time to time. On a consideration of all these factors the prioritisation has been effected and fine tuned to the current realities which is reflected in the circular dated 10-8-1999 issued pursuant to the minutes of the meeting dated 21-7-1999.
(j) That in the meeting dated 21-7-1999 held at Secunderabad representatives of Rice Millers Associations of various districts of Andhra Pradesh were consulted including those of the West Godavari District in which Palakol town also falls and on the basis of the consultations arrived at such meeting it was decided on the basis of the assessment of past tract record, potential and other relevant factors that inter alia out of the percentage of quota earmarked for loading of trade rice l/3rd will be allotted for loading from Dwarapudi in view of the said station having maximum demand as per past statistics and the remaining 2/3rd will be utilised for loading foodgrains from other stations as per the rotational allotment system. It was agreed on the application of this principle that every 3rd rake for loading of trade rice will be allotted to Dwarapudi.
(k) That the current and extant system of allotment of wagons has been formulated pursuant to a meeting of Chief Operations Managers held on 25th and 26th April, 1999 at New Delhi with the authorities of the Railway Board, pursuant to the "Rotational Allotment System" introduced on 18-5-1999 which was modified pursuant to the meeting with the rice millers in the State held on 21-7-1999 leading to the formulation of fresh guidelines as contained in the Railway Board''s letter dated 23-7-1999. This policy choices and deliberations led to the issuance of fresh railway guidelines contained in the Circular dated 10-8-1999, which is in the following terms:
"South Central Railway
Headquarters Office, Transportation Branch, Secunderabad.
No.T 367/II/Genl/Vol.III, Dated 10-8-1999 Sr. DOMs/SC BZA HYD GTL & UBL
Sub:--Rotational allotment for N.F. Railway traffic.
In continuation of this Office letter of even No., dated 18-5-1999 regarding rotational allotment of rakes for NF Railway destinations, the following decisions have been taken during the meeting held by COM/SC with the representatives of the rice millers association on 21-7-1999 at Secunderabad,
Accordingly, the principles mentioned in the aforesaid letter of rotational allotment will be given effect to with the following modifications:
(1) Pending indents of May, 1999 will be cleared first, with in the quota allotted to SCR subject to the restrictions and then onwards "Revised Rotation Allotment System" will be implemented.
(2) 75% of the quota given to SC Railway will be allotted for loading trade rice and the remaining i.e., 25% for other commodities like fertilizers, barytes powder etc., If there are no demands for loading other commodities other than trade rice, the said 25% quota will also be allotted for loading trade rice to NF Railway destinations.
(3) Out of 75% of quota of trade rice mentioned in Para two (2) above, 331/3% will be allotted to DWP station alone considering its loading potential, demand and previous performance. In other words every 3rd rake will be allotted to DWP for loading trade rice to NF Railway destinations.
(4) The particulars of existing and revised sequences of allotments for trade rice and other than trade rice indents as on 1-8-1999 are given in Annexure-A.
(5) If any indent for NF Railway destination is registered at a new station, other than mentioned in the Annexure, that station name will be interpolated after the station at which allotment was given last. However, allotment of rake to such new station will not be given immediately, but only after skipping it for one cycle and then onwards it will be in the regular sequence."
In the material papers filed by the respondents statements have been set out at Pages 20 to 2! thereof showing the statistics of rice exported from various stations in the State during the period 1996-97 to 1999-2000 (upto 21-7-1999) and also statistics in respect of each of the stations with regard to total number of trade rice rakes loaded from Andhra Pradesh for all the destinations in the country and also separately to NF Railway destinations and on the basis of these statistics it is contended that the allotment of higher quantum of wagons to Dwarapudi station constitutes a rational policy choice not liable to be interfered with by this Court in judicial review.
Sri Subrahmanya Reddy, learned senior Counsel appearing for the respondents, on the basis of the above averments, contends that there is no irrationality in the system followed by the Railways in ear-marking wagons for various stations in Andhra Pradesh including for Dwarapudi and Palakol stations. Sri Reddy, learned senior Counsel, also contends that the scope of judicial scrutiny and interference in areas essentially falling within the domain of policy choice, is limited and in the case on hand in view of the absence of any irrationality or arbitrariness urged or demonstrated, no interference is called for.
Prioritisation of Railway stations for evolving supply of rakes or wagons by the Railways is essentially an area of policy choice. Past performance and loading potential, operational conveniences and constraints, the particular fact parameters obtaining in difficult terrain situations like in the NF Railway destinations which also has strategic and defence implications, are some of the multitude of factors which impregnate and found the appropriate policy choices in the matter of operation of wagons. Balancing of and according weightage to one or more of the various relevant factors in evolving the policy choice is also an integral constituent of such policy choice.
Sri C. Ramachandra Raju, learned Counsel for the petitioner, has contended that the weightage given to Dwarapudi station in the matter of allotment of wagons by the respondent-Railways is detrimental to the rights of the members of the petitioner Association and as a consequence of the modified policy, the members of the petitioner Association would suffer grave economic injury and be disabled from fulfilling their export targets founded on the permits issued to them by the State Government in respect of levy free rice. It is additionally contended that the altered policy as contained in the minutes of the meeting held on 21-7-1999 by the 2nd respondent with the representatives of rice millers associations as well as that contained in the said respondents circular dated 10-8-1999 is inconsistent with the earlier policy contained in the circular dated 18-5-1999, which later circular has been issued with the approval of the competent authority. On this basis it is contended that the modification of the policy as ultimately contained in the circular dated 10-8-1999 is inoperable as being in consistent with the earlier policy dated 18-5-1999 and beyond the limits of the 2nd respondent''s jurisdiction. Neither on principle nor authority does this contention commend itself to this Court. There is nothing in the circular dated 18-5-1999 which is also by the SC Railway, warranting an inference that the SC Railway is disabled from fine tuning or modifying its policy according to the requirements of emerging situations. Even in the D.O. letter dated 23-7-1999 bearing Ref.No.99/TT.II/ 31/G/l, addressed by the Executive Director, Traffic Transportation, Railway Board, to the Chief Operations Manager of SC Railway it is indicated that it would be more pragmatic to group stations under two categories "high loading intensity stations" and "low loading intensity stations" and that the available quota of wagons/rakes may be distributed between the two categories keeping in view the total requirement of loading under these two groups of stations. This letter has also advised the desirability of holding a meeting with all concerned and finalising the matter by considering the views expressed. This advice has been adhered to by the meeting held by the 2nd respondent on 21-7-1999 with the representatives of rice millers and the modification of the policy has been the product of such deliberation.
This Court is thus unable to identify any element of irrationality, perversity, arbitrariness, consideration of irrelevant factors or eschewing of relevant factors in the formulation of the new policy, warranting interference by this Court.
Policy choices and in particular in the area of economic matters and apportionment of the limited resources available with the State in relation to a larger demand upon them, is an area predominantly consecrated by the text and structure of the Constitution to the other two branches of the State viz., the Legislature and the Executive. Curial intervention in these areas is limited only to invalidation on the ground of perversity or irrationality. The limits of judicial review in these areas has fallen for curial consideration on more than one occasion to the extent that the matter is no longer res Integra. To refer to but a few of the recent pronouncements on the area.
In Delhi Science Forum and others Vs. Union of India and another, , the doctrine of judicial restraint in the area and judicial deference to the coordinate branches in this area has been enunciated in the following terms:
"The Courts cannot express their opinion as to whether at a particular juncture or under a particular situation prevailing in the country any such national policy should have been adopted or not. There may be views and views, opinions and opinions which may be shared and believed by citizens of the country including the representatives of the people in the Parliament. But that has to be sorted out in the Parliament which has to approve such policies. Privatisation is a fundamental concept underlying the questions about the power to make economic decisions. What should be the role of the State in the economic development of the nation? How the resources of the country shall be used? How the goals fixed shall be attained? What are to be the safeguards to prevent the abuse of the economic power? What is the mechanism of accountability to ensure that the decision regarding Privatisation is in public interest? All these questions have to be answered by a vigilant Parliament. Courts have their limitations -- because these issues rest with the policy makers for the nation. No direction can be given or is expected from the Courts unless while implementing such policies, there is violation or infringement of any of the Constitutional or statutory provision. The new Telecom Policy was placed before the Parliament and it shall be deemed that Parliament has approved the same. This Court cannot review and examine as to whether said policy should have been adopted. Of course, whether there is any legal or Constitutional bar in adopting such policy can certainly be examined by the Court."
In P.T.R. Exports (Madras) Pvt. Ltd. and others Vs. Union of India and others, , the extent of judicial scrutiny into areas of policy change has been succinctly formulated in the following terms:
"5. It would, therefore, be clear that grant of licence depends upon the policy prevailing as on the date of the grant of the licence. The Court, therefore, would not bind the Government with a policy which was existing on the date of application as per previous policy. A prior decision would not bind the Government for all times to come. When the Government are satisfied that change in the policy was necessary in the public interest, it would be entitled to revise the policy and lay down new policy. The Court, therefore, would prefer to allow free play to the Government to evolve fiscal policy in the public interest and to act upon the same. Equally, the Government is left free to determine priorities in the matters of allocations or allotments or utilisation of its finances in the public interest. It is equally entitled, therefore, to issue or withdraw or modify the export or import policy in accordance with the scheme evolved. We, therefore, hold that the petitioners have no vested or accrued right for the issuance of permits on the MEE or NQE nor the Government is bound by its previous policy. It would be open to the Government to evolve the new schemes and the petitioners would get their legitimate expectations accomplished in accordance with either of the two schemes subject to their satisfying the conditions required in the scheme."
Again in Krishnan Kakkanth Vs. Government of Kerala and ohters, , the limits of the judicial review in a matter of scrutiny into executive policy has been considered and the Supreme Court has held:
"36. To ascertain unreasonableness and arbitrariness in the context of Article 14 of the Constitution, it is not necessary to enter upon any exercise for finding out the wisdom in the policy decision of the State Government. It is immaterial whether a better or more comprehensive policy decision could have been taken. It is equally immaterial if it can be demonsirated that the policy decision is unwise and is likely to defeat the purposes for which such decision has been taken. Unless the policy decision is demonstrably capricious or arbitrary and not informed by any reason whatsoever or it suffers from the vice of discrimination or infringes any statute or provisions of the Constitution, the policy decision cannot be struck down. It should be borne in mind that except for the limited purpose of testing a public policy in the context of illegality and unconstilutionality. Courts should avoid ''embarking on uncharted ocean of public policy."
In view of the facts pleaded and urged and the principles of law applicable, as analysed, this Court is of the considered view that no case has been made out by the petitioner Association warranting interference by this Court. The relief claimed is misconceived and the writ petition is accordingly dismissed, but in the circumstances of the ease without costs.