Mohd Abdul Wadood v. Union of India & Ors.

The learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 5 submits that every half yearly interval, the in- motion weighbridges are inspected, tested and accordingly certified by the functioning capacity.

#16. Respondent No. 5 submits that the railway authorities are the authorised persons to maintain and repair faulty in-motion weighbridges. The certifications of the equipment can be carried out provided the railways facilitates the necessary technical environment for testing.

#17. The learned counsel appearing for the railway authorities submits that in the instant case the faulty in-motion weighbridge at Paddmapukur has already been rectified and the grievances raised by the petitioner have been redressed, as such, the Writ 5 petition has become infructuous as the cause no longer survives.

#18. It is further submitted that maintenance is governed by a contract with a third party vendor and that the weighbridge is subject to regular inspections and certification by the railway authorities in accordance with statutory requirement. It is contended that certification by the railway authorities required testing the availability of which depends on operational feasibility.

#19. In the instant case the reweighment has also been conducted manually at the request of the petitioner. The consignments have been received by the petitioner unconditionally and no complaint has been lodged regarding any damage at the time of delivery. Accordingly, there is no evidence of any damage having been caused to the consignments.

#20. The delay in release of the consignment occurred due to the time taken for reweighment and subsequent manual verification of the weight of the consignment which has been conducted at the behest of the request made by the petitioner.

#21. In this context, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently opposes the same and draws attention to paragraphs 21 to 23 of the Writ petition to demonstrate that due to defective weighment procedure and miscalculation, the 6 petitioner has sustained loss causing grave financial hardship.

#22. The petitioner relies upon a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court wherein it has been observed that in MAT 591 of 2022 with IA No. CAN 1 of 2022, Union of India & Ors. Versus Gopal Shrinarayan Shah & Anr.: “ Having heard the parties and anxiously considering the materials placed, this Court finds that the Orders of the Hon’ble Court dated 26th August, 2021, 11th February, 2022, 31st March, 2022, 7th April, 2022 and, lastly the 8th of April, 2022 disclose detailed application of mind to the principal facts in issue namely: a) The correctness of the in-motion Weigh Bridge at Padmapukur to be checked on an as-is-where-is basis by the Controller of Legal Metrology; and b) Weighment of the empty general coach carrying the consignments. This Court notices that the directions passed by the Hon’ble Court on the above two issues do not in any manner affect, impact or infringe the power of the Railways to weigh or re-weigh consignments as provided under Sections 78 and 79 of the Railways Act. This court finds that the germane issue before the Hon’ble Court was not the power to carry out the weighment in terms of the statute but specifically the correctness of the weighment carried out in the facts of each case connected to Issues a) and b) as recorded above.

#23. Due to lack of upkeep and maintenance of in- motion weighbridge at Shalimar, Paddmapukur the parcel vans are shown as overloaded due to malfunctioning of the static weighbridges, resulting in erratic readings and exposing them to penal action.

#24. In conspectus of the above this Court is of the view that the lack of synergy between the Railway authorities and the Legal Metrology Department 7 being the respondent No. 5 herein, cannot be allowed to cause prejudice to the service users. The accuracy of an in-motion weighbridge is a statutory requirement and its failure strikes at the root of fair trend and revenue assessment.

#25. Upon consideration of the submissions made by the parties and the documents placed on record, the following directions are hereby issued: i.) The railway authorities must maintain accurate records of the weighment process including the weight recorded and any discrepancies noted. ii.) The railways shall ensure that in-motion weightbridge is calibrated and certified by a competent authority at least once every six months. iii.) The leaseholders shall be given prior notice of the weightment process and shall be entitled to be present during the weightment. iv.) In event of a dispute, the matter shall be referred to the railway authorities for resolution and their decision shall be final and binding. v.) A digital or physical log for the last stamping and/or calibration of the in-motion weighbridge must be made available for inspection upon request by the leaseholder in the event of a dispute. 8 vi.) In cases of significant variation the leaseholder may apply for reweighment at the next available weighbridge, subject to payment of the requisite fees which shall be refundable if the initial reading is found to be erroneous. vii.) The in-motion weighbridge should be certified by the respondent No. 4 in strict adherence to the prescribed rules.

#26. In view of the above directions, the Writ petition is disposed of.

#27. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the learned counsel for the parties on usual undertakings (Smita Das De, J.)