1983 (10) TMI 287 - SC - Indian Laws

Court Upholds Legality of Traffic Schedule, Dismisses Petitions

VIKLAD COAL MERCHANT, PATIALA, ETC. ETC. Versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

The Court dismissed all writ petitions, finding that the impugned orders and the Preferential Traffic Schedule were lawful and did not infringe on the ... - Issues Involved:1. Alleged violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.2. Alleged unreasonable restriction on the fundamental freedom to carry on trade guaranteed by Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.3. Constitutionality of Section 27A of the Indian Railways Act, 1890.4. Validity of Paragraph (iii) of Priority 'C' of the Preferential Traffic Schedule under Section 27A.5. Validity of Order No. TO(g) 1510/71 dated April 1, 1972 introducing abbreviation 'GX'.6. Alleged total ban on transport of coal from wayside stations and colliery sidings.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Alleged Violation of Article 14:The petitioners argued that the railway administration's action of giving priority to certain transporters of coal while denying the same to them was discriminatory and violated Article 14. The Court held that the Central and State Governments are in a class by themselves for the purpose of Article 14. The Preferential Traffic Schedule issued under Section 27A of the Indian Railways Act, 1890, which provides priorities from 'A' to 'E', is a general order made in public interest. The Court found that the classification of those covered by Priority 'C' and the petitioners is based on intelligible differentia and has a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved. Therefore, the petitioners could not be said to be similarly situated with those grouped together in Priority 'C' (iii).2. Alleged Unreasonable Restriction on Article 19(1)(g):The petitioners contended that the cumulative effect of the impugned orders imposed a total ban on the transport of coal offered by them, thereby violating their fundamental freedom to carry on trade. The Court found this contention factually incorrect, noting that Priority 'E' in the Preferential Traffic Schedule provides for the transport of coal from collieries in accordance with targets laid down in advance. The Court also emphasized that the railway is not the only means of transport and that the restrictions imposed are reasonable and in the larger public interest.3. Constitutionality of Section 27A:The petitioners argued that if Section 27A enables the Central Government to impose a total ban on the transport of coal offered by them, it would be violative of Article 19(1)(g). The Court held that the restriction is reasonable and imposed in larger public interest, noting that the petitioners are not transporters of coal but coal merchants. The Court found that the direct impact of the policy laid down by the railway administration pursuant to the orders of the Central Government under Section 27A results in denial of allotment of wagons to the petitioners, the restriction is nonetheless reasonable.4. Validity of Paragraph (iii) of Priority 'C':The petitioners contended that Priority 'C' (iii) in the Preferential Traffic Schedule permits special facility or preference to individuals or groups of persons selected by the sponsoring authority or recommending body, which is ultra vires Section 27A. The Court rejected this contention, noting that the list of sponsoring authorities includes Central and State Governments and highly placed officials, who are expected to act responsibly in sponsoring persons for coal transport.5. Validity of Order No. TO(g) 1510/71:The petitioners argued that the order introducing the abbreviation 'GX' and appending it to all railway stations resulted in undue preference to Priority 'C' (iii) transporters and subjected them to undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage. The Court found that the order is a regulatory measure necessary for the smooth functioning of the Zonal Distribution Scheme and planned movement of coal. The Court noted that coal in smalls can still be transported from wayside stations, thereby rejecting the contention.6. Alleged Total Ban on Transport of Coal:The petitioners contended that the abbreviation 'GX' imposed a total ban on the transport of coal offered by them, violating Article 19(1)(g). The Court found that the planned and regulated movement of coal is necessary and that the abbreviation 'GX' is a regulatory measure to ensure smooth functioning. The Court concluded that this does not impose an unreasonable restriction on the petitioners' fundamental freedom to carry on their trade.Conclusion:The Court dismissed all the writ petitions, finding that the impugned orders and the Preferential Traffic Schedule were in accordance with the law and did not violate the petitioners' constitutional rights. The Court emphasized the need for planned and regulated movement of coal in the larger public interest.