BANSAL & CO, & ANR.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

    880

                           BANSAL & CO, & ANR,
A
                                    v.
                          UNION OF INDIA & ORS,

                            DECl!MllER 20, 1985

                [R,S, PATHAK AND SAllYASACHI MUKHARJI, JJ,]
B
          Indian Railways Act 1890 & s. 27A & Preferential Traffic
    Schedule - Movement of Coal - Priorities for - Stations nominated
    in Assam and Meghalaya Zones - Whether can be treated as stations
    at colliery sidings - Equitable' distribution of coal - Necessity
    of - Movement of traffic schedule - Sanction - Need for coordi-
c   nation between Coal Controller and General Managers.

          The Ministry of Railways exercising powers under section
    27A of the Railways Act issued a Preferential Traffic Schedule.
    This Schedule prescribed five priorities i,e. priorities 'A' to
    'E' with inter-se priority amongst 'A' to 'E' to be accorded by
    the railways for transport of certain goods or class of goods
D
    specified under each category. Different kinds of coal fell under
    priority 'C' (iii) which provides for movement of coal from
    collieries in accordance with programme and movements sponsored
    or recOlllDended by the Coal Controller or the State Government
    Director, (Movement) Railways.

E
          In Viklad Coal Keri:hant, Patiala v. u.0.1. (1984] 1 s.c,R.
    657, the Supreme Court held that (i) section 27 of the Indian
    Railways Act casts a duty on the Railway Administration to
    arrange for receiving and forwarding traffic without unreasonable
    delay and without partiality; (ii) Section 28 prohibited the
    railway administration from giving undue or unreasonable
F
    preference or advantage to any particular person or railway
    administration; (iii) Section 27A gave power to the Central
    Government to issue directions for giving special facilities or
    preferential treatment in transport of goods or class of goods
    consigned to the Central Government or the Government of any
    State; (iv) in order to be eligible for obtaining allotment of
G
    wagon under priority 'C' it is necessary for the person indent in
    the wagon to satisfy the five conditions specified therein,
    namely (a) that the coal is to be loaded from the collieries; (b)
    that the coal to be loaded is in conformity with the commodity
    quotas laid down from time to time f~r certain types of coal and
    or in accordance with the progrS11111e and movements sponsored or
H
    recommended by the Coal Controller and/or any Colllllittee appointed
    by him; (c) or it is sponsored or recommended bY the State
                      BANSAL & CO. v. U.O.l,                   881

                                                                      A
Government and/or other rec011111ending authorities and accepted by
the Railway Administrations; (d) or it is sponsored or rec011111en-
ded by Director, Movement (Railways) Calcutta; and (e) it must be
in accordance with the Zonal Scheme applicable to each field and
the.principles of transport rationalisation in force from time to
time, and that stoppage at way-side stations for the booking of       B
coal in wagons could not be described as violative of section 28
of the Act or indicated unreasonable restrictions.

      The railways had been allotting wagons and rakes to its
sponsored traders even after the judgment of the Supreme Court in
Viklad's case in priority 'C' when loaded from various stations       c
nominated for coal loading on N.F. Railways. For movement of
Khasi Coal there is no station at colliery siding. As such the
coal loaded from the stations nominated for coal loading on N.F.
Railway had been taken as coal loaded from collieries. One party
M/s Mangalam Enterprises - the respondent to the S.L.P. as well
as to the writ petition filed a petition before the Gauhati High      D
Court against the registration of indents on the basis of the
priorities granted by Calcutta High Court. The High Court allowed
the Civil Rule and directed the Railways to allot wagons in
priority 'C' to the nponsored traders only when they fulfil the
five conditions set out in V:lklad Coal Merchants, case and that
otherwise the registration would be made under 'E' priority and       E
allotment of wagon rakes shall strictly be according to the
seniority of indents at the booking station as per rule 201 of
the Goods Traffic, It further directed that all existing indents
registered under item 'C' for the parties not fulfilling all the
five conditions were to be covered in 'E',

      PUrsuant to the aforesaid order the Railways had been           F
permitting loading of coal by those having sponsorship
certificates under item 'E' even though the indents might have
been registered under item 'C'. Hence these petitions to the
Supreme Court.

      It was contended before the Supreme Court t:iat (1 ) those      G
sponsorers who had to load coal from stations which are not
collieries should not be given priorities in priority 'C' and,
(2) the Preferential Traffic Schedule enjoins that the movement
of Traffic Schedule should be controlled by Controller of Move-
ments and not by the general Managers of Regional Railways and
that this was not canalised by the Controller of Movements.
                                                                      H
      Disposing of the writ petition and the special leave
petitions,
    882               SUPREME COURT REPORTS     (1985] SUPP. 3 s.c,R.

A
          HELD : l, It is true that the railways have permitted
    movement of coal from nominated railway stations which are not at
    all collieries. This had to be done in the interest of equitable
    distribution of coal in the whole country. Otherwise, the State
    of Megbalaya which had no railway stations at the colliery
B   sidings will not be able to transport any coal for the need of
    Punjab or the North. If there is coal iu Meghalaya and there is
    need in Punjab and the North then the scheme should be so read
    that even the nolllinated stations in Assam, nominated by high
    authorities of railways, should be treated for the purpose of the
    scheme as colliery sidings for Khasi coal in those areas. This,
    the Railways did prior to the order of the High Court. This was
C   proper interpretation of the judgment of the Supreme Court in
    Viklad's case, and this should be adhered to. [890 CHI; 891 A-B]

          2. The area of Meghalaya falls within the Assam Fields, The
    list of zonal rationalisation of movement of coal from different
    coal fielda suggests that such zonal rationalisation rust be
    controlled by Central Authorities and not by General Man.agers of
D   different Railways. The movement of such coal llllSt be such that
    it should be coordinated by the Central Authorities like the Coal
    Controller and cannot be done half-hazardly hy the General
    Managers of the different regions. In future, movement of coal
    should be sanctioned by the Zonal Managers of Railways with the
    prior consultation and concurrence of the Coal Controller. This
E   can be achieved quickly if intimation of the same is sent to the
    Controller and no objection is receiv.ed immediat!llY, it will be
    deemed to have been sanctioned,

          In the instant c.asea, where requisitions have already been
    issued and sanctioned with the knowledge of the Controller of
F   Coal then there has been sufficient compliance. (892 A-F]

          3(i) The stations nominated by the railway in Assam and
    Meghalaya Zones should be treated as stations at colliery sidings
    in terms of the directions given in Ynu...i's case.

G          J(ii) the allotment of wagons made by the Zonal Man.agers
     should be adhered to so far as theae have already been made and
     coal should be loaded but in future Zonal Manager should follow
     the procedure in making allotments as indicated herein,

            3(111) in cases where the General Managers sanction
H    movements of coal, iamediate intimation should be given to the
     controller of Movements and vice versa. These two authorities
     DllSt act in harmony, and in consultetion.[892 G-!I; 893 A]
         BANSAL & CO. v. U.O.I. (SAJIYASACHI MUKHARJI, J.]         883

                                                                           A
      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION          Special Leave Petition
(Civil) Nos. 632 & 3386 of 1985.

      From the Judgment and Order dated 11.12.1984 of the As.sam
Nagaland, Meghalaya, Manipur and Tripura High Court in Civil Rule
No. 619 of 1984.                                                           B

                                 WITH

      Writ Petition (Civil) No. 43 of 1985.

      (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.)                     c
      s.c: Gupta, and K.K. Mohan for the Petitioners.
      Govind Das, N.R. Chowdhary, O.P. Sharma, Anil Katyar, R.N.
Poddar arid c.v. Subba Rao for the Respondents.
                                                                           D
      Soumen Chose and N.R. Choudhary for the Intervener in W.P.
No. 43 of 1985 •.

      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

      SAJIYASACllI llUKllAll.JI, '· Special Leave Petition. Nos. 632 and   E
3386 of 1985 by M/s Bansal & Co. and M/s Orient Distributors
respectively and the Writ Petition No. 43 of 1985 by M/s Bansal &
Co. under article 32 of the Constitution challenge the validity
of the order issued by the North East Frontier Railway dated 21st
December, 1984 whereby the said railways sought to implement the
judgment and order of the High Court of Gsuhati in Civil Rule No.
619 of 1984.                                                               F

      By the said order, it was held that M/s Vicky Coal Concern,
Calcutta as well as M/s Mangalam Enterprises were entitled to
priority 'E' and not to priority 'C'. None of the parties, it
was declared by the Gauhati High Court by its order passed on
11th December, 1984, fulfilled the requisite conditions for                G
obtaining priority. 'C' of the Preferential Traffic Schedule of
the Railways (for short PTS). It was declared also that there
could not be any discrimination whatsoever between any trader and
consumer whether privately sponsored trader or private consumer
in priority 'E' and that they should be allotted and· supplied
wagons strictly in terms of the provision of Rule 201 of the
Goods Traffic Rules (for short 'the rules') for acceptance,                H
carriage and delivery of general goods issued by Indian Railways
from time to time, and in order to get priority 'C', they had to
    884                SUP!!EME COURT REPORTS   [1985] SUPP. 3 s.c.R.
A
    fulfil the five conditions enjoined in the decision of the Court
    in Vik.lad Coal llerchant, Patiala, Etc. Etc. V• Union of India &
    Ora., [1984] 1 S.C.R. 657.

          In order to appreciate the position, it is necessary to
B   state that there is in existence a rationalisation scheme for
    movements of coal, booking of coal is allowed from North-Eastern
    Railways to difficult States only when the same is sponsored by
    the respective State Governments. However, coal is allowed to
    move freely upto the stations on east of Siliguri as per said
    Rationalisation Scheme.

C         From 1980 onwards certain High Courts had granted inj unc-
    tion orders on railways to allow booking of coals to various
    States in priority 'B' and 'C' without sponsoring certificates.
    The Railways had tried to comply with those interim orders
    although in certain cases, courts were moved by the Railways for
    vacation of the interim orders. Movement of coal to various
    states took place under priority 'B' and 'C' during the pendency
D   of such interim orders.

          In Vik.lad Coal Merchant, Patiala Etc. Etc. v. Union of
    India & Ors. (supra), the question was considered by this Court.
    In that case, the petitioners in group of petitions under article
    32 of the Constitution were coal merchants who, according to
E   them, had been denied the use of railways for transport of coal
    from various coal fields and way-side stations to their
    destination by certain orders of the railways which were
    described as illegal and unconstitutional by those petitions. The
    court examined these contentions and came to the conclusion that
    section 27 of the Indian Railways Act cast a duty on the railway
F   administration to arrange for receiving and forwarding traffic
    without unreasonable delay and without partiality. Section 28 of
    the said Act prohibited the railway administration from giving
    undue or unreasonable preference or advantage to any particular
    person or railway administration or any particular description of
    traffic. Section 27A was inserted in the Act after 1950. to give
G   power to the Central Government to issue directions for giving
    special facilities or preferential treatment in transport of
    goods or class of goods consigned to the Central Government or
    the Government of any State or of in such other goods or class of
    goods as may be specified in the order.

H         The Government of India, Ministry of Railways issued an
    order dated lat April, 1972 containing its decision to add
    abbreviation 'GX' below the abbreviation 'G' in the list of
                                          •
        BANSAL & CO, v. U,O,I, [SABYASACHI MUKllARJl, J,]     885

                                                                      A
abbreviation at page 14, Chapter VI of the lRCA Alphabetical list
of Railway Stations in India and asking the railway
administration to decide and notify the names of stations to
which this new provision would apply. Putting abbreviation 'GX'
against a station meant that the station was not open for outward
booking of coal, coal shale etc. in wagon loads, Pursuant to this     B
order, the abbreviation 'GX' was appended to all way-side
stations in the coal-belt. Thereafter Government of India,
Ministry of Railways by its order dated 27th April, 1972 revised
Rules 1 and 2 of the Eastern Railway Coal Traffic Part I, The
revised rules provided, inter alia, that all traffic in coal etc.
in wagon loads will be Toiided only from colliery sidings, coke       C
oven plants and washeries on the Eastern Railway, but coal in
wagon would not be permitted at the stations serving these
colliery washeries.

       In exercise of the powers conferred under section 27A of
the Railways Act, the Union of India, Ministry of Railways issued     D
a Preferential Traffic Schedule. This schedule prescribed five
priorities i.e. priorities 'A' to 'E' with ~ !! priorities
amongst 'A' to 'E' to be accorded by the railways for transport
of certain goods or class of goods specified under each category.
Different kinds of coal falls under priority 'C' (iii) which
provides for movement of coal from collieries in accordance with      E
programmes and movements sponsored or recommended by the Coal
Controller and/or any Committee appointed by him and/or the State
Government and/or other recommending authorities and accepted by
the Railways Administrations and/ or Director, Movement (Rail-
ways), Calcutta, and in accordance with the Zonal Scheme applic-
able to each field and the principles of transport rationalisa~
tion in force from time to time, Priority 'E' is a residuary          F
clause and also involves movement of coal from collieries.

      As contended by M/ s Bansal & Co. , certain conditions had to
be fulfilled for getting priority 'C' (iii) in accordance with
the interpretation put by this Court in the aforesaid decision in
Viklad Coal Merchant's case, it is necessary to set out priority      G
 'C' (iii) as appears in the Preferential Traffic Schedule which
is as follows:

            "(iii) Coal from collieries in accordance with
            commodity quotas laid down from time to.· time for
            certain types of coal and/or in accordance with
            programmes and movements sponsored or recommended by      H
            the Coal Controller and/or any Committee appointed by
        886                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS     [1985] SUPP. 3 s.c.R.

    A
                     him and/ or the State Governments and/ or other
                     recommending authorities and accepted by the Railways
                     Administrations and/ or Director, Movement (Railways),
                     Calcutta, and in accordance with the Zonal Scheme
                     applicable to each field and the principles of
    B                transport rationalisation in force• from time to time.
                     A list of sponsoring authorities authorised to sponsor
                     coal movements in this item is given in Annexure· 'B'.

                     (b) Besides the sponsoring authorities mentioned in
                     Annexure 'B' movement of Coal may be sponsored by "any
                     other authority who may be appointed by the Government
c                    from time to time".

                     (c) Recommendation for allotment of wagons by a spon-
                     soring authority or acceptance of recommendations or
                     issue of sanction by the Railway Administration/
                     Director Movement (Railways) does not guarantee
                     allotment/supply of wagons. Allotment/supply of.wagons
D                    would be regulated according to operational exigencies
                     from time to time. Allotment/supplies of wagons may be
                     cancelled or reduced by Director, Movement (Railways).

                     (d) The period of validity of programmes/sanctions for
                     rakes/piecemeal movement may be laid down from time to
E.                   time by Railway Administration/Director, Movement
                     (Railways), The validity of programme/sanction does
                     not guarantee allotment/supply of wagons.

                    (e) Inter se seniority of the class of conaumers would
                    be laid down from time to time by Railway Adminis-
F                   tration Director, Movement (Railways) and may be
                    altered/modified from time to time. Within the same
                    class or category of consumers seniority may be fixed
                    from time to time depending upon the operational and
                    other considerations. Railway Administration/Director
                    Movement (Railways) may permit distress allotments/
G                   supply of wagons when considered necessary. Nothing
                    laid down herein shall be conaidered as contrary to
                    notes (a) to (b) appearing under Priority 'E',"

        Annexure B mentions the State Collieries - about 27 in number who
        are sponaoring authorities to sponsor coal movements.
H
               In Viklad Coal Merchant's case, the petitioners therein . who
        were     coal merchants alleged that sum total of various
        BANSAL & CO. v. U.O.I. [SAJ!YASACHI MUKllARJI, J.]    887
                                                                      A
restrictions including one dated 1st April, 1972 introducing
abbreviation 'GX' and the Preferential Traffic Schedule
specifying priorities under section 27A(l) of the Act in their
ctunUlative effect imposed a total ban on transport of coal by the
railways at the instance and their action was violative of
articles 14 and 19(l)(g) of the Constitution. Other contentions       B
were also raised. Discussing the need for the controlling
movement of coal and desirability of channalising coal for public
sector by sponsoring agencies and accepting that railways was
subject to constitutional check on the monopoly, the court came
to the conclusion that instructions issued under section 27A were
neither violative of the Act nor the provisions of the Act. i.e.      c
section 28 and 27A violative of articles 14 or 19 of the
Constitution. It was emphasised that a developing country with
mixed economy and economic planning had certain targets to
achieve. These targets were planned in advance and the economic
activity was geared to the achievement of these targets. If the
 required resources necessary for achieving the targets were          D
 readily available, no difficulty would arise. But a developing
 country had to so distribute its scarce resources to achieve and
 accomplish desired targets. This situation is bound to lead to a
 gap between demand and supply or various facilities. Transport
 was one of such. Once there was a gap between the demand for
 transport service offered by the railway and the supply of the       E
 service, the resources being not sufficient to meet with all
 existing demands, the scarce resources would have to be equitably
 distributed keeping in view the planned target. The equitable
 distribution would necessarily necessitate imposing of reasonable
 restrictions and according of priorities. Then this Court
 analysed the Preferential Traffic Schedule of the list of
 sponsoring authorities and came to the conclusion that the list          F
 indicated that the Central and State Governments as well as
 highly placed Central and State Government officers had been
 appointed as sponsoring authorities in respect of coal required
 by different area and industries. This Court therefore rejected
  the contention that the setting up of recommending authorities in
  priority 'C' ultra vires section 27A of the Act. This Court             G
  observed that transport of coal is according to a plan drawn up a
  year in advance. Further this plan was subject to the decision of
  the Standing Linkage Committee. Every meticulous detail was
  worked out in advance. A daily loading of maximum number of
  wagons was pre-planned. All the steps indicated thetein were
  arranged including the abbreviation 'GX' in effective implementa-
  tion of plan movement of coal. Therefore stoppage at way-side           H
  station of the booking of coal in wagons could not be described
  as violative of section 28 of the Act or indicated unreasonable
  restrictions violative of article 19(l}(g} of the Constitution.
        888               SUPREME COURT REPORTS     [1985] SUPP. 3 s.c.R.


    A        Dealing with the Preferential Traffic Schedule, this Court
        dealt with different priorities and analysing priority 'C' which
        gave the movement of coal to sponsored dealers priority, this
        Court observed at pages 677-678 of the report as follows:

                   "Priority 'C' (iii) which deals with coal provides for
B                  transport of coal from collieries to various parts in
                   India. It was subjected to varying constructions. It
                   has been extracted earlier. In order to be eligible
                   for obtaining allotment of wagon under Priority 'C',
                   it is necessary for the person indenting the wagon to
                   satisfy the various conditions specified therein. They
                  are: (i) that' the coal is to be loaded from the
C                  collieries; (ii) that the coal to be loaded is in
                  conformity with the commodity quotas laid down from
                   time to time for certain types of coal and/or in
                  accordance with the programmes and movements sponsored
                  or reconmended by the Coal Controller and/or any
                  Committee appointed by him; (iii) or it is sponsored
                  or recommended by the State Government and/ or other
D                 recommending authorities and accepted by the Railways
                  Administrations; (iv) or it is sponsored or reconmen-
                  ded by Director, Movement (Railways), Calcutta; (v)
                  and it must be in accordance with the Zonal Scheme
                  applicable to each field and the principles of
                  transport rationalisation in force from time to time.
E                 In order to comply with the pre-conditions for eligi-
                  bility under Priority 'C', a list of sponsoring autho-
                  rity authorised to sponsor coal movements is drawn up
                  and is set out in Annexure 'B' to the Preferential
                  Traffic Schedule. These general conditions are further
                  subject to Notes A to E. Why such an exhaustive and
F                 detailed provision is made is not difficult to answer?
                  Coal forms 32% of the total transport of goods handled
                  by the Railways. On an average, more than 10,000
                  wagons will have to be allotted daily for transport of
                  coal. Coal being a primary source of energy usei by
                  heavy industries, electricity generating plants, steel
G                 plants as also cooking fuel used in the rem<itest parts
                  of the country, it is necessary to handle its
                  transport with scientific precision. Therefore, there
                  is a prior planning about a year in advance drawn up
                  by the Director, Movement (Railways) setting out Zonal
                  Scheme of distribution applicable to each coal-firld
H                 force from time to time. The purpose underlying
        Bl\NSAL &CO. v. U.O.I, [SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J,]     889


          setting up of sponsoring and recommending authorities     A
          is to ascertain the needs of various regions of the
          country who is their respective regions would be in
          close and intimate contact with the consumers of coal
          both industrial and individual. Even though power has
          been conferred on them to sponsor or recommend indent-
          ing of wagons of coal from collieries this network of     B
          sponsoring and recommending authorities are subject to
          the Zonal Scheme applicable to each coal field and the
          principles of transport rationalisation in force from
          time to time. The nerve centre is the Director, Move-
          ment (Railways) of all the activities connected with
          transport of coal. In addition to this the Government     c
          has set up a Standing Linkage Committee in the Depart-
          ment of coal in the Ministry of Energy. This Committee
          assesses the link and requirement of particular source
          of coal. The Committee keeps in view the requirements
          of such major industries and establishments using coal
          like the Railways, thermal power stations, fertiliser     0
          plants,    cement plants,    steel plants,     textile
          factories, chemical industries and the like. This very
          narration would show that if there is disturbance in
          regular supply of coal to this priority sector result-
          ing in their closure, there would be a ripple effect-
          ing various ancillary industries creating a major         E
          dislocation in the national economy and escalating
          haunted spectre of lay off and unemployment. That is
          why planning is undertaken every year inadvance and
          but for any emergency it is considered inadvisable
          to disturb the advance Planning because any such
          distur)>ance results in serious dislocation of this
          primary source of energy being distributed all over       F
          the country keeping in view national priorities."

     The first condition indicated in priority 'C' (iii) is the
coal to be loaded from collieries. This is one of the conditions.
It has however been found and it is further stated and admitted
by the railways that the railways had been allotting wagons and     G
rakes to its sponsored traders ·even after the judgment of this
Court in Vik.lad's case in priority 'C' when loaded from various
stations nominated for coal loading on N.F. Railways. For
movement of Khasi coal there is no station at colliery siding.
As such the coal loaded from the stations nominated for coal
loading on N. F. Railway had been taken as coal loaded from
collieries. This was not pointed out to the court in Viklad 1s      H
    890                SUPREME COURT REPORTS    [1985] SUPP. 3 s.c.R.
A

    case. One party M/s Manglam Enterprises - the respondent to SLP
    as well as to the Writ Petition filed a petition before the
    Gauhati High Court against the registration of indents on the
    basis of the priorities granted by other High Court, namely the
B   Calcutta High Court. The Gauhati High Court passed its order in
    the aforesaid Civil Rule set out hereinbefore asking the. Railways
    to allot wagons in priority 'C' to the sponsored traders only
    when they fulfilled the five conditions set out in the judgment
    of this Court as set out hereinbefore, otherwise the registration
    would be made under 'E' priority and allotment of wagons rakes
    shall strictly be according to the seniority of indents at the
c   booking stations as per rule 201 of the Goods Tariff. It was
    further directed that all existing indents registered under item
     'C' for the parties not fulfilling all the five conditions were
    to be covered in 'E'.

         In pursuance of this order, the Railways have been
    permitting loading of coal by those having sponsorship
o   certificate and others as per various High Courts orders under
    item 'E' including M/s Bansal & Co even though the indents migjlt
    have been registered under item 'C', This has resulted in the
    present special leave petition as well as the Writ Petitions.

         As mentioned hereinbefore one of the conditions is that coal
E   should be loaded from collieries and this condition is not
    fulfilled in the case of Khasi coal as there is no colliery in
    Meghalaya State unless the nominated stations in Assam are
    treated as colliery sidings for Khasi coal. Railways have issued
    a notification to that effect.

F        Two contentions were urged before us that those sponsorers
    who had to load coal from stations which are not collieries
    should not be given priorities in priority 'C', Secondly, the
    Preferential Traffic Schedule enjoins that the movement of
    Traffic Schedule should be controlled by Controller of MOvements
    and not by the General Managers of the regional Railways.
G
         So far as the first contention is concerned, it is true that
    railways had permitted movement of coal from nominated railway
    stations which are not at collieries. This had to be done in the
    interest of equitable distribution of coal to the whole country.
    Otherwise State of Meghalayas which had no railway stations at
H   the colliery sidings will not be able to transport any coal for
    the need of Punjab or North. This would be improper if there is
    coal in Meghalaya and there is need in Punjab and North then the
           llANSAL & CO. v. U.O. I, [SABYASACHI MUKllARJI, J,]   891
                                                                        A

  scheme should be so read that even the nominated stations in
  Assam, nominated by high authorities of railways, should be
  treated for the purpose of the scheme as colliery sidings for
  Khasi coal in those areas. Titls Railways did prior to the order
  of the Galihati High Court. This was proper interpretation of the     B
  judgment of this Court keeping in view the rationale of the said
  decision and·this should be adhered to.

        The second contention was that this was not canalised by the
  Controller of Movements, It is true that the Controller of
  Movements Who had been general idea of the scheme would know all      c
  of ·.the mavements. But this is a sponsored coal and General
  Managers of the Railways would also know about the movements of
  coal.

          Mr, ·Ghosh appearing for some of the respondents submitted
    that the Preferential Traffic System was supported and reserva-     D-
    tion in priority 'C' was sustained subject to the conditions that
    the coal must be booked from the collieries and further urged
    that where ··in situations such coal could not be booked from the
   collieries, there was no warrant in the decision of this Court in
   Viklad' a case to permit as has been done in this case loading of
   coal from nominated stations by railways. We are unable •o           E
    sustain the submission made on behalf of the respondents on this
   ground. It is true that this Court in the aforesaid decision
    permitted the preferential traffic system on the basis of
    priority •c• and one of the main conditions of priority 'C' was
    that booking of coal must be from the colleries. But the
    situation like the one we have before us is that in areas having
    coal fields. or having excess quantity of coal available for use    F
    in other parts of the country, having no railway stations in the
    collieries cannot supply coal to those places in Punjab and North
   where coal is required, Titls would be contrary to the system of
   equitable and reasonable readjustment of rights between the
   different s~ctors, upon the whole basis of which the decision of
   this Court rested in_ Viklad 's case, unless the nominated           G
. . stations,'. !liations nominated by the Railways are treated as
 · 'railway st'ationa' in collieries in the spirit of Viklad's case.
   We read it' accordingly. We may further note that there was no
   allegati 0ti that the power of nomination so far has in any way
    been misused.

        The second objection was and there is some substance in         H
 . that, that· 'there is a zonal schedule and principle of controlled
   tranaportat~on should be borne in mind. ln this connection our
    892                SUPREME COURT REPORTS    [1985] SUPP. 3 s.c.R.


A   attention was drawn to page 177 of Special Leave Petition No, 632
    of 1985 indicating the zonal rationalisation scheme for movement
    originating from different coal fields, where item (I) mentions
    Assam Fields. The area of Meghalaya falls within the Assam
    Fields. The list of zonal rationalisation of movement of coal
    from different coal fields suggests that such zonal rationalisa-
B   tion must be controlled by Central authorities and not by General
    Managers of different Railways. This was vital for free and
    equitable distribution and was necessary for the ceilings for the
    year 1985 to be observed by sponsoring authorities for the core
    sectors by the Central and State sponsoring authorities for non-
    core sectors and these were indicated in Annexures lA, 1B and lC
    of the said scheme. It was further submitted that in Viklad's
c   case at page 668 of the report, this Court emphasised that coal
    loading is a matter of huge dimensions and the Department of
    Coal, Ministry of Energy had set up a sta.nding linkage committee.
    The movement of such coal must be such that it should be coordi-
    nated by the Central authorities like the Coal Controller and
    cannot be done half-hazardly by the General Managers of the
    different regions. As indicated before, there is some substance
n   in this. liut if the movements are coordinated and for this the
    Controller of Coal as well as General Managers, in case one
    authority requisitions wagons and intimates the other, there
    should be sufficient compliance. In this case where requisitions
    have already been issued and sanctioned with the knowledge of the
    Controller of Coal (because the procedure followed postulated
E   that every item was intimated to him and was not objected), then
     there has been sufficient compliance. In future movements of coal
     should be sanctioned by the Zonal Managers of Railways with the
     prior consultation and concurrence of the Coal Controller. This
     can be achieved quickly if intimation of the same is sent to the
     Controller and no objection is received immediately, it will be
F    deemed to have been sanctioned. So far as these cases are
     concerned, the indents for which wagons have. been issued and
     which were cancelled due to the judgment of the Gauhati High
     Court should forthwith be rescinded and M/s Bansal & Co. and
     other similarly situated like them should be permitted to load
     the coal in wagons in pursuance of the wagons issued in their
G    favour. We order as follows :-

         1, that the stations nominated by the railways in Assam and
    Meghalaya Zones should be treated as stations at colliery sidings
    in terms of the directions given in Viklad's case

H         2. that the allotment of wagons made by the Zonal Managers
         BANSAL & CO, v, U, 0, l, [SABYASACHI MllKllARJI, J, ]   893


                                                                       A
should be adhered to so far as these have already been made and
coal should be loaded but in future Zonal Managers should follow
the procedure in making allotments indicated in this judgment.

     3, that in cases where the General Mana'gers sanction
ioovements of coal, immediate intimation should be given to the
                                                                       B
controller of Movements and vice versa. These two authorities
must act in hamony, and in consultation.

     4, that except these directions there will be no order on
the Special Leave Petitions as well as no order on the Writ
Petition ~nd these are disposed err accordingly.
                                                                       c
     Parties will pay and bear their own costs.




M.L.A.                                        Petitions disposed of,