2007 (7) TMI 715 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Demand for punitive charges by Railway Authorities for alleged overloading of wagons.
2. Challenge to paragraph 1744 of the Indian Railways Commercial Manual.
3. Territorial jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court to entertain the petitions.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Demand for Punitive Charges:
The petitioners contested the Railway Authorities' demands for punitive charges related to the alleged overloading of wagons. They argued that such demands should be made before the delivery of goods to allow them to challenge any weighment made by the Railways. The demands in these cases were raised post-delivery of goods. The petitioners relied on Sections 73 and 79 of the Railways Act, 1989, to support their position.

2. Challenge to Paragraph 1744 of the Indian Railways Commercial Manual:
The petitioners challenged paragraph 1744 of the Indian Railways Commercial Manual, claiming it violated Section 79 of the Railways Act, 1989, as it effectively negates the statutory right of re-weighment. This manual was formulated by the Railway Board under the Indian Railway Board Act, 1905. The petitioners sought the quashing of both the punitive charges and paragraph 1744 of the Manual.

3. Territorial Jurisdiction:
The respondents objected to the maintainability of the petitions on the grounds that the Delhi High Court lacked territorial jurisdiction. They argued that the punitive charges were raised by the Chief Station Manager, South East Central Railway, Mandhar, Chhattisgarh, and that no part of the cause of action arose in Delhi. The petitioners' registered office is in Nagpur, Maharashtra, and their integrated steel plant is in Mandhar, Chhattisgarh. The booking, re-weighment, and delivery of goods occurred outside Delhi.

The respondents cited Supreme Court decisions, including Union of India v. Adani Exports Ltd. and Kusum Ingots and Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India, to argue that the mere framing of a legislation or executive order in Delhi does not confer jurisdiction unless the cause of action arises within the territorial limits of the court.

Analysis of Jurisdiction:
The court examined the jurisdictional argument by referring to Article 226 of the Constitution. Article 226(1) empowers High Courts to issue writs to any person or authority within its territorial jurisdiction, while Article 226(2) extends this jurisdiction to cases where the cause of action arises within its territory. The court noted that Article 226(2) was introduced to address the inconvenience highlighted in earlier decisions, allowing High Courts to entertain writs even if the cause of action partly arises within their jurisdiction.

The court distinguished between the two clauses, emphasizing that Article 226(1) provides jurisdiction based on the location of the authority, while Article 226(2) extends jurisdiction based on the cause of action. The court referred to several Supreme Court decisions, including Navinchandra N. Majithia v. State of Maharashtra, to support this interpretation.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that it had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petitions under Article 226(1) because the Railway Board, which issued paragraph 1744 of the Indian Railways Commercial Manual, is located in Delhi. The challenge to the punitive demands was intrinsically linked to the validity of paragraph 1744, thus bringing the case within the jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court. The court also noted that the doctrine of forum non conveniens could not override the statutory or constitutional provisions conferring jurisdiction. The petitions were therefore maintainable before the Delhi High Court.