12.08.2026 Ct. No.446 Sl. No.1 akd W. P. A. 24743 of 2016 [Essel Mining and Industries Limited -Vs- Union of India& Ors.] Ms. Debjani Sengupta Mr. Aurin Chakraborty Mr. Paritosh Sinha Mr. Amitava Mitra Mr. Naman Agarwal … … for the petitioner Mrs. Aparna Banerjee … … for the respondents [South Eastern Railway] 1. Fundamentally, the present writ petition was preferred challenging the legality and propriety of the letter dated 13th April, 2015 issued by the Divisional Commercial Manager (F)/Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, Chakradharpur, refusing to accede to the petitioner’s request for refund of the Wagon Registration Fees (in short, ‘WRF’) amounting to Rs. 3,85,25,000/-, on the ground that the petitioner’s claim was time-barred. In addition, the petitioner prayed for a direction upon the concerned respondents to refund the WRF amounting to Rs. 1,48,09,150/-. 2. Succinctly stated, the facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition are that the petitioner was engaged in mining operations of iron ore in Odisha and, for this purpose, deposited WRF with the respondents/Railways for registration of indents/demands for wagons at the sidings. Upon acceptance of the said fees, the respondents/Railways issued money receipts (in short, ‘MR’). However, subsequently, the petitioner prayed for refund of the amount deposited as WRF. 2 3. Record reveals that several communications were exchanged between the petitioner and the concerned respondents/Railways. Subsequently, an amount of Rs. 82,80,850/- was also adjusted against the dues of the respondents/Railways amounting to Rs. 2,30,90,000/- payable by the petitioner. However, subsequently, the respondents/Railways took the plea that stacking charges amounting to Rs. 100,14,47,200/- were due and payable by the petitioner. 4. Ms. Debjani Sengupta, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, submits that by illegally linking the WRF with the stacking charges, the respondents/Railways refused to disburse the WRF in favour of the petitioner. She further submits that, regarding the issue of payment of stacking charges, a dispute arose between the parties, which ultimately travelled up to the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court and, in an intra-court appeal being MAT 1895 of 2011, an Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court restrained the respondents/Railways from taking any steps to recover any amount towards stacking charges until disposal of the appeal and the said appeal is still pending for final adjudication. Therefore, she argues that the refusal to pay the WRF, either by linking the same with the stacking charges or on the ground that the petitioner’s claim for refund of WRF is time-barred, is totally unsustainable in law. 5. Ms. Sengupta further submits that the demand for refund of WRF was raised way back in 2013. However, the respondents/Railways, taking recourse to a circular issued in 2014, have refused to refund the said amount. She further submits that the said circular of 2014 cannot be given 3 retrospective effect. She also submits that the respondents/Railways have refunded WRF in favour of some similarly situated persons, who had also deposited WRF prior to the circular of 2014 coming into effect. 6. It is submitted by Ms. Sengupta that, even after issuance of the letter dated 13th April, 2015, all these facts were brought to the notice of the concerned respondents/Railways by submitting a representation dated 30th April, 2015. However, despite receipt of such representation from the petitioner, no effective steps have been taken by the respondents/Railways. This inaction prompted the petitioner to prefer the present writ petition. She submits that the petitioner would be satisfied if the concerned respondents/Railways are directed to consider the representation dated 30th April, 2015, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 7. Mrs. Aparna Banerjee, learned Advocate representing the respondents/Railways, submits that the amount deposited by the petitioner towards WRF is not refundable as per the circular of 1955 as well as the circular dated 22nd December, 2014, which stipulates that the petitioner had to stake its claim for refund of such WRF within three years from the date of its payment or from the date of the last debit in case of lump sum deposits. She asserts that, in the present case, such claim was not made within the period prescribed under the said circulars and, therefore, the concerned authority has rightly rejected the petitioner’s claim for refund of WRF. She further submits that there is no scope for further consideration. 8. Heard the learned Advocates appearing for both the parties and perused the materials on record. 4 9. The communication dated 13th April, 2015 made by the Divisional Commercial Manager (F)/Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, Chakradharpur, and addressed to the petitioner indicates that the petitioner’s claim for refund of WRF was turned down on the ground that the claim was time-barred. In taking such decision, the circular dated 22nd December, 2014 was relied upon, whereas the claim for refund of WRF was made in 2013. Various communications exchanged between the petitioner and the respondents/Railways show that, on several occasions, certain amounts were shown as refundable towards WRF, and the petitioner also raised the plea that the amount towards WRF had been refunded in favour of certain similarly situated persons. 10. Noting these facts, I am of the view that there is scope for the respondents/Railways to revisit the issue and that the issue raised by the petitioner in its representation dated 30th April, 2015 requires consideration. 11. In view thereof, the writ petition is disposed of by directing the Divisional Commercial Manager (F)/Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, Chakradharpur, South Eastern Railway, to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 30th April, 2015, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the authorised representative of the petitioner, and to take a reasoned decision thereon. 12. It is clarified that if the Divisional Commercial Manager (F)/Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, Chakradharpur, finds that the claim made by the petitioner is justified, appropriate steps shall be taken for refund of the WRF in favour of the petitioner. However, if the said Divisional Commercial 5 Manager (F)/Senior Divisional Commercial Manager arrives at a conclusion that the petitioner’s claim is unfounded, a reasoned order shall be passed and the same shall be communicated to the petitioner. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of ten weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 13. With these observations and directions, WPA 24743 of 2016 is disposed of. 14. There shall be no order as to costs. 15. Let urgent Photostat certified copy of this order be made available to the parties, if applied for, upon compliance of usual formalities. (Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.)