- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47640 WP No. 65905 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 65905 OF 2016 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: JSW STEEL LTD. (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS JINDAL VIJAYNAGAR STEEL LTD.) HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT MUMBAI BRANCH OFFICE AT 6TH FLOOR, EAST WING, RAHEJA TOWERS, M.G.ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY, MR. MANI C. MANUEL, GENERAL MANAGER …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ASHOK HARANAHALLI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SUBRAMANYA R., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS, RAILWAY BOARD, RAIL BHAVAN 1, RAISINA ROAD, NEW DELHI-110001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY 2. CHIEF CLAIMS OFFICER OFFICE OF CHIEF CLAIMS OFFICER, SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAYS, NO.18, MILLERS ROAD, NEXT TO RAILWAY RECRUITMENT BOARD, BENSON TOWN POST, BENGALURU-560 046 Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47640 WP No. 65905 of 2016 3. SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY ZONAL HEAD QUARTERS OFFICE, COMMERCIAL BRANCH, GADAG ROAD, HUBBALLI-580 020 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF COMMERCIAL MANAGER 4. SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAYS, HEAD QUARTERS OFFICE, COMMERCIAL (CLAIMS) BRANCH, RAILWAY NILAYAM, SECUNDRABAD-500071 TELANGANA STATE, REPRESENTED BY ITS SENIOR COMMERCIAL MANAGER (CLAIMS) 5. SOUTHERN RAILWAYS, CHENNAI PORT TRUST RAILWAY, ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE, RAJAJI SALAI, CHENNAI-600 001 TAMIL NADU, REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY TRAFFIC MANAGER …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MADHUKAR M. DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 5) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE CIRCULARS ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAYS BEARING EVEN NO.C.490/JSWT/TNGL/14 AND DATED 09.09.2014 [PRODUCED AS ANNEXURES-A AND B] AND ETC. THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDER ON 30.07.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:- - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47640 WP No. 65905 of 2016 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ CAV ORDER The petitioner has challenged circulars of even date i.e 09.09.2014 issued by the respondent No.3 revising the chargeable distance to and from JSWT Siding Hubli Division over South Western railway with effect from 10.09.2014. It has also questioned the circular dated 29.02.2016 issued by respondent No.3 in so far as it relates to not allowing reopening of the past cases pertaining to over charges paid by the petitioner for the earlier period. The petitioner has also questioned various communications issued by respondent Nos.3, 4 and 5 refusing to refund the overcharges collected from it under the impugned circulars dated 09.09.2014. 2(i). The petitioner is a Public Limited Company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. It has established a steel plant at Toranagallu Bellary District. It claims that post liberalization, the State Government invited major steel companies to set up integrated steel plants. In 1994, Jindal Iron and Steel Company was chosen to set up a steel plant in association with Karnataka State Industrial and - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47640 WP No. 65905 of 2016 Infrastructure Development Corporation (KSIIDC). Accordingly, a Company named Jindal Vijayanagar Steel Limited (JVSL) was incorporated in the year 1994 and the lands which were acquired for Vijayanagar Steel Limited was allowed to be used by JVSL by the State Government. The name of the Company JVSL was then changed to JSW Steel Limited. (ii). It contends that in order to manufacture steel and generate energy, it requires raw materials such as iron ore, iron ore lumps, laterite lime Stone, coal and coke. In order to bring the raw material to the factory, the petitioner is dependent on the Indian railways. The raw materials are brought from various parts of the Country to the factory premises through railway wagons and shunted at factory premises. In order to bring the raw materials into the factory premises, a ‘Private Siding’ has to be constructed. This private siding connects the nearest ‘Railway Serving Station’ with the buffer end being the farthest point for charging inside the siding. (iii). The Private Siding will be served from the nearest railway station which would be called the ‘Serving Station’. In - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47640 WP No. 65905 of 2016 the instant case, the petitioner claims that the nearest Serving Station to its steel plant is Toranagallu Railway Station in Bellary District. The distance from the nearest Serving Station to the buffer end of the Private Siding was earlier fixed as 7 Km. The goods / raw materials either coming from Goa via Gadignur or from Chennai via Toranagallu and from Ranjithpura via Banihatti had to come to the nearest ‘Serving Station’ i.e. Toranagallu. It is from Toranagallu, the goods / raw materials were brought into the siding (JSWT) into the ‘Buffer End’ point. The petitioner and respondent No.3 had entered into a Private Siding Agreement on 16.01.2007. This agreement prescribed the duties and obligations of the parties. A sketch was also appended to the Siding Agreement. Thereafter connecting points were directly created in respect of the raw materials / consignments coming from Goa via Gadignur and Ranjithpura via Banihatti were directly connected to the petitioner’s Private Siding with the ‘Buffer End’ of the petitioner’s premises. However, the raw materials or consignment coming from Chennai via Toranagallu was coming as usual from Toranagallu, the Serving Station and the distance between the Serving Station / connecting points to the Buffer End of the siding at - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47640 WP No. 65905 of 2016 the factory premises of the petitioner was within 7 Km. The petitioner claims that it paid the freight charges though there was a difference of one Kilometer without raising any dispute. (iv). The respondent No.3 issued a circular dated 09.09.2014 revising the chargeable distance with effect from 10.09.2014 and gave a very short notice to the petitioner to respond. The petitioner claims that the chargeable distance was calculated taking into account the distance beyond the ‘Buffer End’ point and the revised distance in respect of the raw materials / goods and consignments coming from the three directions mentioned are as follows: Sl.No. Direction Kms 1. Gadignur to JSWT 25.00 Kms 2. Toranagallu to JSWT 20.09 Kms 3. Banihatti to JSWT 20.42 Kms In the circular dated 09.09.2014, it was stated that the rakes for loading and unloading can be placed at any place inside the Siding as per the requirement. However, the respondent No.3 issued another circular on the same day deleting the words "placing of loading and unloading as per the requirement”. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47640 WP No. 65905 of 2016 (v). The petitioner claims that after receipt of the impugned circulars, it addressed a communication dated 10.09.2014 requesting the Chief Commercial Manager of respondent No.3 to withdraw the circular as the revision was unilateral and was unacceptable to the petitioner. Since there was no response from the respondent No.3, the petitioner addressed another communication dated 22.09.2014 to consider its request and put on hold the circular with immediate effect. The petitioner thereafter made repeated communications dated 24.09.2014, 25.09.2014 and 03.10.2014, which were of no avail. The petitioner then addressed a communication dated 14.10.2014 to the Executive Director (Traffic Transportation-Steel), Railway Board, New Delhi, requesting him to consider the ‘Actual Movement Pattern’ of trains inside the siding of the petitioner and consider the chargeable distance accordingly. The petitioner also addressed a communication to the Executive Director (Rates), Railway Board, New Delhi, on 14.10.2014 requesting for a clarification regarding fixing the chargeable distance to JSWT. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47640 WP No. 65905 of 2016 (vi). The petitioner claims that it addressed a letter dated 05.12.2014 to the respondent No.3 for considering the ‘Actual Movement Pattern’ for fixing the distance instead of the distance fixed under the impugned Circulars. A similar communication was addressed by the petitioner to the respondent No.3 on 20.02.2015. (vii). The petitioner claims that since it had no other alternative as the respondents were not responding, it paid the higher rates demanded. It is contended that freight charges are required to be paid as per the tariffs fixed by the Railway Board for various commodities from time to time. The Freight Rate Tables as applicable in the Indian Railways for various classes of commodities was vide a communication dated 16.03.2015 issued by respondent No.1 to the General Managers of All Indian Railways adjusted effective from 01.04.2015. A copy of the combined revised Goods Tariff No.48 Part I (Vol.II) and Goods Tariff No.48 Part-II (Freight Rates Tables) was enclosed with the said communication dated 16.03.2016. (viii). The petitioner claims that a perusal of the change in distance as introduced by the impugned circulars dated - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47640 WP No. 65905 of 2016 09.09.2014 and the communications and the rate slabs at Annexure ‘N’ to the petition, would show that with the increase in the chargeable distance for the commodities coming into the petitioner unit at Toranagallu, the charges entered the next chargeable slot to/from some origin/destination. The charges entered the next chargeable slot to / from some origin / destinations. Thus, in view of the revised chargeable distance, the petitioner was not only required to pay the amount towards the excess distance but was also required to pay the next higher rate since the distance went to the next higher slab in some cases. (ix). The petitioner claims that freight charges are required to be paid as per the tariff fixed by the Railway Board. The petitioner has furnished a table indicating the chargeable distance from three directions of origin to destination i.e. (i). prior to the impugned circulars dated 09.09.2014; (ii). the chargeable distance during the existence of the impugned circulars dated 09.09.2014; (iii). the chargeable distance after the issuance of the circular dated 29.02.2016; and (iv). the distance at which the chargeable slot changes. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47640 WP No. 65905 of 2016 FROM TO VIA PRIOR TO 09.09. 2014 (KMS) AFTER 09.09. 2014 (KMS) AFTER 29.02. 2016 (KMS) DISTANCE AT WHICH THE CHARGABLE SLOT CHANGES Goa JSWT Gadignur 420 433 419 426 Chennai JSWT Toranagallu 545 558 546 551 Ranjitpura JSWT Banihatti 30 35 31 126 (x). The petitioner claims that the respondent No.3 on 11.08.2015 addressed a letter to the petitioner enclosing a draft ‘Addendum’ to the existing agreement and sought suggestions. In response, the petitioner sent its comments and reply to each and every point referred in the Addendum. The respondent No.3 / Senior Divisional Manager, South Western Railway, re-drafted the agreement and same was sent to the petitioner vide communication dated 30.09.2015 along with the re-drafted agreement for approval. As per the said communication, the respondent No.3 had indicated the chargeable distance as follows: Sl. No DIRECTION KMS 1. Gadignur to JSWT 12.951 Kms. 2. Toranagallu to JSWT 8.040 Kms. 3. Banihatti to JSWT 8.369 Kms. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47640 WP No. 65905 of 2016 (xi). The petitioner claims that the re-drafted agreement was based on the “Actual Pattern Movement” and therefore, the petitioner had conveyed its acceptance to the re-drafted agreement vide communication dated 30.09.2015. After the said acceptance, the Addendum agreement was executed on 22.02.2016. As per the Addendum, the chargeable distance was fixed as below: Sl. No DIRECTION KMS 1. Gadignur to JSWT 12.951 Kms. 2. Toranagallu to JSWT 8.040 Kms. 3. Banihatti to JSWT 20.418 Kms. (xii). The petitioner claims that though the distance from Banihatti to the ‘buffer end’ of the siding was indicated as 8.369 Km in the re-drafted agreement but while executing it, it was shown as 20.418 Km. The petitioner executed the agreement as there was no commercial impact as the distance between Ranjithpura to JSWT via Banihatti fell under the slab 0 to 125 km. The petitioner represented to the respondent No.3 vide letter dated 12.04.2016 in that regard and stated that the chargeable distance from Banihatti had been fixed incorrectly as against the re-drafted agreement accepted by the petitioner - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47640 WP No. 65905 of 2016 vide its letter dated 30.09.2015. However, the actual distance for charge from Banihatti to JSWT i.e. Point 132A (Buffer End) of south yard of the petitioner as per the actual pattern of movement is 8.369 Km. The petitioner, therefore, requested the respondent No.3 to revisit the distance considered from Banihatti to JSWT and change the same to 8.369 Km up to Point 132A and to issue a fresh Circular to ensure correct charging of freight and distance. The petitioner claims that the Addendum came into force with effect from 01.03.2016. As a consequence, the respondent No.3 issued a Circular dated 29.02.2016 whereby it barred the reopening of the over charges paid prior to the Addendum Agreement. The portion of the said Circular dated 29.02.2016 which the petitioner is aggrieved of is as follows: "in terms of Addendum to the siding Agreement executed on 22.02.2016 & issued vide letter no.C.490/JSWT/TNGL/2015-16 dated 22.02.2016 and with reference to Railway Board's Rates Master Circular Freight on Through Distance Basis/2014/O issued vide letter No.TC-I/2014/214/3 dated 24.09.2014 and on the basis of actual pattern of movement, the chargeable distance to and from M/s JSW Steel, Toranagallu (Code:JSWT) needs to be revised w.e.f. 01.03.2016." - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47640 WP No. 65905 of 2016 (xiii). The petitioner claims that the above circular made it clear that the chargeable distance to and from M/s. JSW Steel Siding Toranagallu (Code:JSWT) was revised on the following basis: "i) in terms of Addendum to the siding Agreement executed on 22.02.2016 & issued vide letter no.C.490/JSWT/TNGL/2015-16 dated 22.02.2016. ii) With reference to Railway Board's Rates Master Circular Freight on Through Distance Basis/2014/0 issued vide letter No.TC-I/2014/214/3 dated 24.09.2014. iii) On the basis of actual pattern of movement." (xiv). The petitioner contends that while the Circular dated 29.02.2016 has mentioned the aforesaid as the basis for revising the chargeable distance and also bears mention to the Railway Board's rates Master Circular Freight on Through Distance Basis dated 24.09.2014, the impugned circulars of even date i.e. 09.09.2014 has no basis for the issuance of the same. It is contended that the respondent No.1 vide its communication dated 24.09.2014 addressed to the General Managers of all Zonal Railways, communicated the system of charging freight on through distance basis (known as the ‘Rates - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47640 WP No. 65905 of 2016 Master Circular Freight on Through Distance Basis’) in case of sidings. This communication referred to various circulars / letters issued by the Railway Board. As per the said communication, the guidelines regarding system of charging freight on through distance basis are stipulated in various Board’s letters / rates circulars as mentioned in the said communication and that it has been decided to issue Rate Master Circular on the subject by duly consolidating all guidelines. Further, as per the said communication, the relevant provisions mentioned in the Board's letters / circulars were drawn out and consolidated guidelines on the subject matter were enclosed therewith. It was specifically mentioned that all other provisions mentioned in the Board’s letters/Rates circulars holds good. (xv). The petitioner has referred to the circular dated 24.09.2014 and contends that Clause 4.3 of the Rules Master Circular Freight on Through Distance Basis provides that the chargeable distance will be calculated in terms of Rule 125 of Goods Tariff. However, calculation of chargeable distances from the siding to the take off point or vice versa should be on - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47640 WP No. 65905 of 2016 the basis of actual pattern of movement and not with reference to the serving station concept. The chargeable distance based on this methodology for such siding may be notified in the Rates Branch System (RBS) for correct charging of freight. (xvi). The petitioner claims that the Railway Board’s letter dated 28.04.1999 on the subject "calculation of chargeable distance for siding working on through distance basis", addressed to the General Managers (Comml.)/OSDs, All Zonal Railways the chargeable distance for siding shall be calculated in terms of Rule 125 of Goods Tariff Part I (Vol.1). In the said Board’s letter dated 28.04.1999, it was stated that the chargeable distance for rake load traffic from the siding to the take up point or vice versa should be on the basis of “Actual Pattern of Movement” and not with reference to the Serving Station concept. (xvii). The petitioner contends that the impact of the impugned circulars of even date i.e. 09.09.2014 resulted in the petitioner paying extra amount to the respondent Nos.3, 4 and 5 respectively for various commodities coming to its unit at Toranagallu between 10.09.2014 to 29.02.2016. The petitioner - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47640 WP No. 65905 of 2016 has placed on record the particulars of the extra payment made which amounts to a sum of Rs.1,57,58,96,123/-. The petitioner claims that it approached the respondents seeking refund of the excess amount. It has furnished the details of the excess amount paid pursuant to the impugned notification dated 09.09.2014 and claims that a sum of Rs.1,54,75,64,013/- is payable by respondent Nos.3, 4 and 5. However, the same are either turned down by respondent Nos.3 and 4 or have been referred to the respondent No.3 by the respondent No.5. The petitioner, therefore, contends that the respondents are bound to charge based on the “Actual Pattern of Movement” and not with reference to the “Serving Station” concept and the impugned circular runs contrary to the Rates Master Circular Freight on Through Distance Basis dated 24.09.2014 and the Railway Board's letter dated 28.04.1999. (xviii). The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that the chargeable distance fixed earlier at 7 Kms. is applicable till 29.02.2016 and therefore, the excess freight charges collected between 10.09.2014 and 29.02.2016 based on the circulars of even date i.e. 09.09.2014 is not only illegal - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47640 WP No. 65905 of 2016 but not sustainable. He contends that the said impugned circulars revising the chargeable distance is not in accordance with the guidelines of respondent No.1 and the Rates Master Circular Freight on Through Distance Basis dated 24.09.2014 and the Railway Board’s letter dated 28.04.1999. He contends that the action of the respondents is contrary to the Guidelines prescribed by the respondent No.1 and also the principles of natural justice were not followed by the respondent No.3 before the freight charges were revised. (xix). Learned Senior Counsel further contends that the petitioner was expected to pay for the actual usage of the network of the respondents and the same was recognized as per the Railway Board’s letter dated 28.04.1999 and this policy was in force as on the date of the issuance of the impugned circulars of even date i.e. 09.09.2014 and therefore, the said impugned circulars are void ab initio. He contends that the chargeable distance mentioned in the Private Siding Agreement also does not conform to Rule 125 of the Goods Tariff and the Railway Board’s letter dated 28.04.1999. The chargeable distance mentioned in the Private Siding Agreement is from the - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47640 WP No. 65905 of 2016 ‘Serving Station’ and not based on ‘Actual Pattern of Movement’. He contends that the respondent No.3 has violated Rule 125 of the Goods Tariff and the Railway Board’s letter dated 28.04.1999 and hence, the impugned Circulars of even date i.e. 09.09.2014 are arbitrary and illegal. He contends that the impugned orders passed by the respondents in refusing to refund the excess freight charges are arbitrary and illegal. He, therefore, prays that the impugned circulars and the communications be quashed and to declare that the enforcement of the circulars of even date i.e. 09.09.2014 issued by the respondent No.3 for the period from 10.09.2014 to 22.09.2016 is illegal. He also prays that the circular dated 29.02.0216 issued by respondent No.3 in so far as it relates to the prohibition of reopening of overcharges paid for the earlier period be quashed. He also prays for refund of the excess freight charges paid. In support of his contentions, he has relied upon the following judgments: 1) ABL International Ltd. and another v. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. and Others [(2004) 3 SCC 553]; - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47640 WP No. 65905 of 2016 2) Unitech Limited and Others v. Telangana State Industrial Infrastructure Corporation (TSIIC) and Others [(2021) 16 SCC 35]; 3) Uttar Pradesh Power Transmission Corporation Limited and Another v. CG Power and Industrial Solutions Limited and Another [(2021) 6 SCC 15]; 4) Union of India and Others v. Tantia Construction Private Limited [(2011) 5 SCC 697]; 5) M.P.Power Management Company Limited, Jabalpur v. Sky Power Southeast Solar India Private Limited and others [(2023) 2 SCC 703]; 6) Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi and Others v. State of U.P. and Others [(1991) 1 SCC 212]; 7) Pankaj Cargo Mover v. The Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, South Western Railway and another [WA No.3495/2012 c/w WA No.3722/2012 disposed off on 05.12.2012]; 8) M/s Pankaj Mohan Associates v. The Senior Divisional Commercial Manager [WP No.7635/2014 disposed off on 24.07.2014]; 9) Principal Chief Conservator of Forests and Others v. Yamthong Haokip [(2008) 17 SCC 645]; 10) Union of India v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. [2024 SCC OnLine SC 372]; - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47640 WP No. 65905 of 2016 11) Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited v. Union of India [(2018) 17 SCC 729]; and 12) Rajasthan State Electricity Board v. Union of India and Others [(2008) 5 SCC 632]. 3. 3. The petition is opposed by the respondents who contend that in so far as prayer No.iv in the writ petition is concerned, it does not survive for consideration as the request to consider the distance between Bannihatti and JSW Steel Ltd. is reconsidered and there is no financial implication on both the parties. It is claimed that the petitioner has an alternate and efficacious remedy under Section 13(1)(a)(ii) of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987. It is claimed that the jurisdiction regarding freight charges is vested in a Special Tribunal constituted under the said Act and therefore, a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution is not maintainable. It is claimed that the petitioner’s siding in its Company comprises of five yards i.e. South Yard, North Yard, Cement Yard, Energy Yard and Hopper yard. These yards are connected by rail lines for the movement of freight trains and locomotives and are distributed in a vast area inside the premises of the petitioner. It is claimed that on 06.04.1998, the petitioner commissioned - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47640 WP No. 65905 of 2016 the South Yard consisting of 8 lines. The North Yard and Cement Yard were commissioned in the year 2008 consisting of 10 and 2 lines respectively while the Hopper Yard consisting of 1 line was commissioned in the year 2011. It is claimed that until 2014, a flat fee was charged by the Railways even though the distance travelled by the locomotive Engine was within the five yards. On an inspection, it was noticed that the initial notification of the year 1998 for determining chargeable distance was only in respect of South Yard whereas new yards were added to facilitate increased production and they were interconnected. It is claimed that the distance from South Yard to other yards was to be traversed by the locomotives of the respondents, it was decided to recalculate the freight by taking into account the farthest location till the JSWT Yard. Accordingly, the notification dated 09.09.2014 showing the chargeable distance was determined as follows: i. From Gadiganur to JSWT (North Yard via South Yard)- 25.00 Kms. ii. From Tornagallu to JSWT (North Yard via South Yard) - 20.09 Km. iii. From Bannihatti to JSWT (North Yarda via South Yard) - 20.42 Km. - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47640 WP No. 65905 of 2016 4. It is claimed that after the petitioner had made payments, sought refund of the amounts which was rejected. It is claimed that the validity of this rejection can be contested only before the Railway Claims Tribunal. It is claimed that later it was decided amongst the parties that a point shall be determined where the respondents’ locomotive would stop and thereafter, the petitioner would use its own locomotive to move the rakes forward. This point was determined as Point No.132A in South Yard. Therefore, the new chargeable freight distance was fixed from Point No.132A and the chargeable distance stood reduced as follows: i. From Gadiganur to JSWT - 12.951 Kms ii. From Tornagallu to JSWT - 8.040 Kms iii. From Bannihatti to JSWT - 20.418 Kms An addendum was added to the agreement on 22.02.2016 which was duly signed by the petitioner. Therefore, it is contended that no excess freight is charged and collected by the respondents as the agreement dated 22.02.2016 had reduced the length of the siding from the earlier length. - 23 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47640 WP No. 65905 of 2016 5. The learned counsel for the respondents reiterated the above submissions and submitted that the chargeable distance has now reduced and therefore, the petitioners cannot claim refund of the amounts. 6. A rejoinder is filed by the petitioner to the statement of objections filed by the respondents contending that the petition was filed before the Railway Claims Tribunal claiming refund of Rs.1,54,75,64,103/- and that the same was rejected. Therefore, the petitioner has challenged the notification itself on the ground that the same is arbitrary and illegal. It is claimed that in the sketch enclosed to the statement of objections as Annexure ‘R1’, the hot metal area is also mentioned. However, the railway locomotive moves only up to South Yard and North Yard and not beyond the tipplers prior to 09.09.2014. Besides, it is contended that the railway freight was charged up to Point No.131 of South Yard which was 7 Kms from Toranagallu Station at the tippler rear side. However, the Railway locomotives were used only up to pre- tipping lines. It is claimed that the Railway locomotives moved up to North Yard from the centre line of Torangallu station - 24 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47640 WP No. 65905 of 2016 which is 4.76 Kms and lesser than 7 Kms charged from Toranagallu. It is claimed that when the locomotives are used to move beyond Point No.131 in South Yard, the Railway Locomotive haulage charges as per the circular was paid by the petitioner. In so far as the Vigilance Inspection Report dated 23.01.2014 is concerned, it suggested that chargeable distance as per the notification dated 06.04.1998 was followed and this distance holds good in so far as Railway locomotives were used within the TNGL - South Yard distance only i.e 7 Kms. It is, therefore, contended that the respondents have issued the impugned notifications without the application of mind. 7. By an additional Statement of Objections, it is contended by the respondent No.3 that clause No.34 of the Private Siding Agreement dated 16.01.2007 provided for resolution of disputes between the parties through Arbitration. Therefore, it is claimed that the petition is not maintainable. 8. I have considered the submissions made by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. - 25 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47640 WP No. 65905 of 2016 9. The petitioner has challenged the rejection of its request for refund of excess freight charges on the basis of interpretation of circulars of even date i.e. 09.09.2014 issued by the respondent No.3 and the Railway Board's letter dated 28.04.1999. The transaction between the petitioner and the respondents arose out of a Private Siding Agreement dated 16.01.2007. This Agreement did provide for resolution of dispute through Arbitration and the relevant clause reads as follows: "34. Arbitration: "In the event of any dispute or difference of opinion between the parties as to the respective rights and obligations of the parties hereunder or as to the true intent and meaning of these presents or any articles or conditions thereof arising such dispute or difference of opinion (except the matters regarding which the decision has been specifically provided for in, this agreement) shall be referred to the an arbitral tribunal consisting of atleast 3 members to be appointed by the General Manager, S.W.. Railway for the time being, and his decision shall be final conclusive and binding on the parties. For the purpose of this Agreement, the General Manager will mean the head of the SOUTH WESTERN Railway Administration. If one or more of the arbitrators appointed by the General Manager resigns from his appointment as an arbitrator or - 26 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47640 WP No. 65905 of 2016 vacates his office, or is unable or unwilling to act so for any reason whatsoever or dies, the General Manager will have the power to appoint a new arbitrator to act in his place. Such arbitral tribunal shall be entitled to proceed with the reference from the stage at which it was left by the previous arbitrator. The arbitral tribunal may from time to time, with the consent of Parties _____ to these presents enlarge time for malting and publishing the award" 10. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondents, the contention of the petitioner that it is bound to pay for the actual distance used on the basis of the tariff order and the earlier circulars of even date i.e. 09.09.2014, are too technical for this Court to appreciate and adjudicate upon. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondents, the petitioner having lost its right before the Railway Claims Tribunal for refund of the excess tariff paid, cannot renew its challenge by attacking the circulars of even date i.e. 09.09.2014. Be that as it may, the question whether the petitioner is liable to pay tariff based on actual distance travelled or otherwise, cannot be decided in this writ petition and the appropriate remedy for the petitioner is to invoke the process of arbitration. - 27 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47640 WP No. 65905 of 2016 Hence, the petition is dismissed reserving liberty to the petitioner to invoke the arbitration clause contained in the Private Siding Agreement dated 16.01.2007, if it is not otherwise barred in law. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE SMA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 75