Railway rates jurisdiction is prospective only; tribunal cannot reopen past charges or order refunds without express statutory power.

The Railway Rates Tribunal's jurisdiction was confined to complaints that a railway administration "is charging" or "is levying" an unreasonable rate or charge, which was read as a present and prospective demand rather than past charges already collected. On that construction, the Tribunal could determine reasonableness and fix a reasonable rate, but could not reopen completed transactions made before the complaint. The same reasoning meant it had no power to order refund of excess amounts collected, as neither the relevant provisions nor the general scheme of the Act expressly or by necessary implication authorised retrospective repayment.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Railway Rates Tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain complaints about the reasonableness of railway rates and charges already made before the institution of the complaint; (ii) Whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to grant a refund of excess charges.

Issue (i): Whether the Railway Rates Tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain complaints about the reasonableness of railway rates and charges already made before the institution of the complaint.

Analysis: The jurisdiction conferred on the Tribunal under the relevant provisions was limited to complaints that a railway administration "is charging" or "is levying" an unreasonable rate or charge. Those words were construed as referring to a present demand for services to be rendered, not to charges already made in the past. The statutory language did not include words such as "has charged", and the scheme of the Act showed that the Tribunal was empowered to decide whether the complained-of rate was unreasonable and, if so, to fix a reasonable rate, but not to reopen completed charges made before the complaint.

Conclusion: The Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain or try the complaint in respect of rates and charges made before the institution of the complaint.

Issue (ii): Whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to grant a refund of excess charges.

Analysis: The power to hear and decide a complaint, and to fix a reasonable rate or charge, did not carry with it any power to order repayment of amounts already collected. Section 39 was held not to confer such jurisdiction, because a refund order was not necessary for exercising the jurisdiction otherwise conferred by the Act. Section 46B was also not an independent source of power, and the absence of any express provision for compensation or damages, unlike the wording of the corresponding earlier constitutional provision, reinforced that no refund jurisdiction existed. Section 26 was held irrelevant to the existence of Tribunal jurisdiction over refunds.

Conclusion: The Tribunal had no jurisdiction to grant a refund.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because both jurisdictional objections taken by the Railway Company were upheld, and the Tribunal's view on both issues was affirmed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute empowers a tribunal to decide whether a rate or charge "is" unreasonable and to fix a reasonable rate, the power is confined to prospective determination unless the statute expressly or by necessary implication authorises retrospective reopening or refund of amounts already collected.

---