IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI A T NEW DELHI

CIVIL EXTRA ORDINARY JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. OF 2007.

In the matter of: -

1. PVCHR
(Peoples Vigilance Committee for Human Rights)
Through its Convener
Dr. Lenin S/o Shri Surendra Nath Singh
Registered Office at SA/4, Daulatpur, Varansi,
Uttar Pradesh

2. CHITRA
(Centre for Human Rights Initiative)
Training & Research Association)
Through its Secretary
Anup Kumar Srivastava S/O T.P.Srivastava
R/o Flat No. -2, House No. – 99,
J-Extension, Laxmi Nagar,
New Delhi – 110092 …Petitioners.

Versus
1. Ministry Of Railways,
Through The Secretary,
Rail Mantralaya,
New Delhi

2. Railway Board
Through Chaiman
Rail Mantralaya,
New Delhi

3. Gujarat Electricity Board.

Through Chairman
Gujarat Urja Vij Nigam Limited,
Sardar Patel Vidyut Bhavan,
Race Course,
Vadodara 390 007
Gujarat, India

4. M/s. Chirag & Co.,

Through its proprietor,
Shri Surendrabhai Shah
102, Yogi Darshan Appartment,
Alka Puri, Baroda-7 …Respondents

1
A PETITION IN PUBLIC INTEREST UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT, ORDER OR
DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER
WRIT DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.1 TO FRAME
POLICY/RULES & REGULATIONS IN RESPECT TO WAIVER OF
DEMURRAGE AND FURTHER DIRECTION FOR ENQUIRING
INTO VARIOUS DOUBTFUL CASES OF WAIVER OF
DEMURRAGE, BY CBI WITH FURTHER DIRECTION TO
RESTRICT THE MIDDLEMEN IN WAIVER OF DEMURRAGE
CHARGES.

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH AS UNDER: -

1. That the petitioner by way of this petition under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India begs to approach this Hon’ble Court with a

view to bring to the notice of this Hon’ble Court an organized

institutional Corruption the shocking state of affairs showing total

apathy, deliberate neglect by the Respondent No.1 and 2 while

dealing with the issues related to demurrage charges and its

waiver. The said neglect is being caused deliberately, malafidely

and illegally, at the behest of certain top officials of railways, as

these officers are beneficiaries in such cases.

The petitioner by way of present writ petition want to

draw the attention of this Hon’ble Court towards the various

corrupt practices going on in Railway Department while dealing

with the issues related to waiver of Demurrage charges in utter

disregard to the interest of Railways, thereby causing huge loss

of public money. That certain Railways officers empowered to

waive the Demurrage charges, misuse their discretionary

powers by acting arbitrarily in favour of the

2
consumer/contractors causing grave prejudice to the Indian

Railways.

Further, present petition also highlights the fact that the

present directives/instructions of railway Board in respect to the

waiver of demurrage , which are otherwise obsolete, are also

not been followed by the officers of the railways.

That the petitioner herein, after coming across CAG

Report , Lok Sabha Questionnaire and other certain relevant

documentary information, was shocked to realize as to that

how the authorities along with the middlemen etc. are misusing

powers with regard to the discretion of waiver of Demurrage

Charges, for personal interest causing huge pecuniary loss to

Indian Railways and at the cost of public exchequer. And all this

is happening in absence of any definite policy/rule/regulation

etc.

It is submitted that the said irregularity being caused

while arbitrarily waiving the Demurrage as highlighted by way

of present writ petition, is though on the basis of some relevant

documents in respect of the Respondent No.3. But the said

malpractice also points out the clear possibility that such

malpractices are being carried on in other cases of waiver of

demurrage apart from Respondent No.3. Further, there is a

possibility of a very big racket going on in waiver of demurrage,

in collusion with corrupt railway officers and middleman

wherein Railways suffers huge losses.

3
 That, the present petition also gathers support from the

Union Audit Reports (Railways) 2003-2004 issued by The

Comptroller & Auditor General of India, (Annexure P- ).

Thereby it clearly proves that the Directives issued by the

Railway Board from time to time have proved ineffective,

reflecting a need to strengthen the system through better

internal control like obtaining finance concurrence by the

authorities before exercising discretionary powers of

demurrage charges. Further the system of giving only broad

reasons for waiver in respect of large sidings where demurrage

is waived periodically also requires a review. There is also a

need of framing an effective policy/rules & regulation in respect

to the waiver of the demurrage in Railways thereby putting a

proper check and control on the discretion of the railways

officers authorized to waive the demurrage.

Apart from the aforesaid there should be an

enquiry/investigation against the corrupt railway officers, who

while acting as the officers concern waived the demurrage

without any justified reasons, at the cost of the interest of

Railways.

2. That the Petitioner No. 1 i.e. PVCHR and is filing this Writ

Petition against Corruption. That the Petitioner No.1 is working

in Asia Levels Human Rights Organization and has worked on

various Anti corruption issues since 2000. Further petitioner

No.1 is active for the implementation of various government

4
orders in the matter of Guarantying Food Securities to the

teaming millions of this States who are reeling under the

poverty line or who are deprived of the basic amenities of a

dignified human existence. It is noteworthy that Dr. Lenin has

been awarded Prestigious “Gwanju Human Right Award” of

South Korea in 2007

That the PVCHR stands for promotion and reservation of the

human rights of the common people specially the weaker

section, the dalits, the tribals, the womens and the marginalised

people who are target of the operation and depression of State

machinery and the feudal social system.

That further the petitioner herein is an NGO, which is working

with the various objective inter-alia being protection of the

public interest and public money and also to raise voice against

the corruption. That the petitioner is working since last more

than 12 years and is committed towards the fulfillment of its

objectives which have been formulated with the sole intention

of public interest and development of our country.

That petitioner no. 2 is a Professing Social and Human Rights

Non Government organization working under the name of

CHITRA- (Centre for Human Rights Initiative, Training &

Research Association). Petitioner No.2 is fighting against

corruption for the various issues in the country.

5
 3. That prior to getting into the real facts of the present case it is

just and necessary to discuss the concept of “Demurrage” in

context to Indian Railways, which is stated as under:

“Demurrage is a charge levied and recovered to

compensate loss caused to Railway due to extra time

taken by the party in loading/ unloading of goods

resulting in detention to wagons”.

Circumstances leading to waiving of demurrage charges :

The circumstances, which lead to accrual of demurrage

charges, can be broadly grouped in three categories as under:

(i) Reasons within the control of the consignor/consignee.

(ii) Reasons beyond the control of consignor/consignee like

labour strike, transportation strike, general bandhs,

agitations, riots, curfew, fire, explosion, heavy rains or

other abnormal/unforeseen circumstances and

(iii) Act of God act of War and act of public enemies

It is submitted that in case of Category (a), waiver should

normally not be done, however, if at all waiver is to be granted

on justified and meritorious facts, a speaking order should be

recorded in all such cases.

As regards case pertaining to Category (b) or Category (c),

though waiver can be considered, but on merits of individual

case.

4. That the discretionary powers have been delegated to officers

of the Indian Railways, at various levels for waiver of

6
 demurrage charges. It is further submitted that the Railway

Fare and Freight Committee in their Report (December 1993)

had recommended that waiver of demurrage should be an

exception. Further it was also observed that routine waiver of

demurrage charges, to some extent, conceals elements of

favouritism and corruption. The Railway Board has been

issuing instructions from time to time to curb the tendency to

waive demurrage charges.

The copy of the circular of Respondent No.1 in respect of the

Rules regarding waiver of Demurrage is annexed herewith

and marked as ANNEXURE P- 1.

5. That in reference to the aforesaid it is submitted that the

Respondent No.3, receives coal and residual fuel oil in their

five sidings at Ukai Songarh, Sevaliys, Dhuvaran,

Gandhinagar Capital and Sikka.

That in April, 1992, Respondent No.3 awarded the

contract for consultancy services for railway claims including

waiver of demurrage charges above 50 per cent, train

load/wagon long adjustment and missing wagon adjustment to

M/s Chirag and company i.e Respondent No.4 . The

Respondent No.4 acted as middleman in between the

respondent no.3 and Railways. That the said contract was

awarded on a trial basis and the scope of service and

commission charges pertaining to the contract were to be

7
decided after observing the contractor’s performance during

the trial period.

It is submitted that Respondent No.4, was basically a

railway contractor in railway coal handling contractors, as

certified by the railway authorities themselves. The chairman

of the respondent No.3 approved the award of contract and

the justifications given for the appointment were as under:

i) The Board was getting around 10 to 11 lakh MTs of

coal per month from a distance of around 1000 to 1900

Kms through the Railway. During the course of the

transportation, wagons consigned to the Board were

found missing and many times rakes diverted from other

consignees were received. The Board had to lodge

claims for the missing wagons, which were settled by

the Railways as a set off against the diverted rakes

received by the Board. These adjustments took a lot of

time and consequently led to accumulation of pending

claims with Railways.

ii) Railways levied demurrage for non-release of rakes

within the prescribed time limit. Upon application from

the Board, demurrage was waived to the extent of 50

per cent only. During 1990-91 railway waived

demurrage to the tune of Rs. 86.26 lakh against the

assessment of Rs. 159.98 lakh i.e., just 53.92 per cent.

8
 In 1991-92 Railways waived Rs. 91.28 lakh against the

assessment of Rs. 163.52 lakh i.e., 55.82 per cent only.

iii) Appointing an agent having proper liaisoning with

the railways would help in the expeditious settlement of

claims and waiver of demurrage at least up to 70 per

cent.

6. That after the said contract was awarded, during the trial

period, the waiver of demurrage rose from 50- 55 per cent to

above 75 per cent. Further, based on the performance

assessment, the contract was extended from 1 November

1992 to 31 October 1994. Further, the above said contract

was first put up to the Board of directors of respondent No.3,

on 30 January 1995 wherein the next extension from 1

November 1994 to 31 October 1995 was approved. That later

on, the said contract was extended from time to time upto 31

March 1998.

7. That in December 1997, it was decided by respondent No.3,

to go for a limited tender for awarding the contract, as

invitation of public tender could invite criticism. Accordingly, in

March 1998, the tenders were invited from 9 parties of whom

7 quoted and were regarded as technically acceptable. That

the Respondent No.4, being the L-1 party was awarded the

contract from 1 April 1998 to 31 March 1999. Further, the said

9
 contract was extended from time to time upto 31 December

2002.

That during the said period of contract, the said middleman

being respondent No.4. received huge payments in the form

of commission for waiving the demurrage beyond reasonability

and the respondent No.3 also derived benefit .

The terms and conditions of the contract awarded to

Respondent No.4 i.e M/s Chirag & Co. over the period 1992 to

2002 are given in Table-1 which is annexed herewith and

marked as Annexure P-2.

8. That it is pertinent to mention here that In March 1995, the

Railway Board stipulated that normally more than 25 per cent

of the accrued amount should not be waived and reasons for

waiver above ten per cent should be recorded. However, Audit

scrutiny of records of Ukai, Songarh Stations in respect of

Respondent No.3, in September 1995 revealed that above

instructions of the Railway Board were not being followed.

Moreover, in almost all cases, waiver was being allowed up to

95 per cent.

Further, in reply to the said Audit Note of November

1995, the local Railway Administration, in the month of

February 1998 had stated that all concerned had been

advised to follow the Railway Board’s directives while

considering the request of Respondent No.3 for waiver of

demurrage charges.

10
9 That from the aforesaid conduct of respondent No.3 and the

railways authorities, it is quite apparent that the Respondent

NO.3 despite being wholly owned by the Government of

Gujarat and having no secret funds for giving bribes, have

devised a novel system of pocketing public money, in

connivance with certain Railways officers, by appointing a

middleman, who is being paid a hefty sum of 25% of the

waived demurrage amount.

As stated above the Respondent No.3 is booking coal

rakes from the Colliery to their power Houses situated in

Gujarat. The rakes so received are given 10 hours for

unloading. In case more than the stipulated hours are taken

for unloading, demurrage charges are recovered from

Respondent No.3. However, the competent Railway Officials

waive the demurrage charges based on the merits of each

case. Since the demurrage charges are not considered a

source of earnings for railways and also the Respondent NO.3

being a government organization, demurrage charges of the

Respondent NO.3 are very liberally waived to the tune of 80%

to 90%. In-spite of this, the Respondent NO.3 have appointed

Respondent No.4, as middleman supposedly to get waiver of

demurrage from the Railway Officials and in return, he is

getting 25% of the amount waived, as commission. Further

considering the total accrual of demurrage, which is to the

11
 tune of Rs. 1 crore to Rs. 1.25 crores a month, the middleman

is getting about Rs. 10 lakhs a month as Commission.

It is submitted that the said practice on the part of the

Respondent NO.3 is nothing but institutionalization of

corruption in which a Government Department is appointing a

middleman to deal with another Government Department and

commission is being paid to the Middleman on percentage

basis.

Further, it is also submitted that the Railway Board, vide

their letter No. 98/TE1/10/2 Pt. II dated 26-05-2001 had asked

the Respondent NO.3 to explain about this corrupt practice.

However, the Respondent No.3 denied that they have

appointed any middleman despite the fact that middleman has

been appointed officially and an agreement with the

middleman exists in which payment of 25% to 35% of the

amount waived is being paid through cheque .

It is also submitted that the respondent NO.3 paid Rs. 5.15

crores to the middleman for facilitating waiver of demurrage

from Railway Officers. Further, in this way 5.15 crores of public

money has been pocketed by these people.

The payments made to the middleman and benefit derived by

the Respondent No.3 for the above period are given in Table-2

which is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure P-3.

10. That the aforesaid irregularities were also been

challenged/pointed out by one Mr. G.D Sharma, who was an

12
Officer on Special Duty, Western Railways, Ahemdabad,

before various Authorities being Anti Corruption Bureau , SR.

CM BRC, Advisor Vigilance of Railway Board, Supdt. of Police

CBI on various occasions.

That in response to the said letter of Mr. G.D Sharma,

highlighting the engagement of middleman by respondent No.3,

for getting waiver of demurrage charges from the railways, the

Anti Corruption Bureau issued a letter dated 19.12.2002 to said

Mr. G.D Sharma, stating therein that the information provided

by Mr. G.D Sharma is confirmed and the detailed enquiry report

has been sent to authority for further necessary action.

That apart from the said challenges to the “waiver of

demurrage”, the said Mr. G.D Sharma in his letter dated

3.12.2003 to Advisor Vigilance of Railway Board, Supdt. of

Police CBI, specifically pointed out the names of certain

corrupt railway officers, stating as under:

“Certain Officers in Railways are the beneficiaries of this

practice. Shri Manmohan Singh at present working as

Deputy Chief Commercial Manager (Freight &

Marketing), W.Rly., Churchgate, Mumbai, who worked

as Asstt. Commercial Manager and Divisional

Commercial Manager , Ahmedabad and then Senior

Devisional Commercial Manager of Vadodara is the

mastermind who has devised this system in partnership

13
 with Shri Surendrabhai Shah of M/s. Chirag & Co.,

Vadodara who was a labour supplier for Parcel Handling.

Shri Arun Dubey : The earstwhile Chief Commercial

Manager, w.Rly., Churchgate, now Additional Member

(C&S), Railway Board, New Delhi is the chief patron of

Shri Surendra Shah of M/s. Chirag & Co., Shri

Manmohan Singh, ex Sr. Divisional Commercial

Manager, Baroda and now Dy. Chief Commercial

Manager (Freight & Marketing), Churchgate, Shri R.K.

Meena , Divisional Railway Manager, Jaipur- who was

earlier posted as Officer on Special Duty at

Ahmcbabad, Shri K.C Jena the then Divisional

Railway Manager,Boroda and now posted as Chief

Operatrions Manager, Churchgate, and Shri Ashutosh

Chandra, Sr. Divl. Commercial Manager, Ahmedabad,

W.Rly. These officers regularly received bride money

from Shri Surendrabagi Shah, the middleman and

liberally received waived demurrage of G.E.B.”

It is submitted that the above said corrupt official of railways are

still holding the top official post in Railways and are indulged

into various malpractices and irregularities.

The copy of the said letters dated 18.07.2002, 19.12.2002 ,

20.12.2002, 3.12.2003 are annexed herewith and marked as

Annexure P-4 ( COLLY).

14
11. Further, the said contract for consultancy services for railway

claims including waiver of demurrage as awarded to

middleman being Chirag & Co. by Respondent No.3, was

discontinued with effect from December 2002, as the Anti

Corruption Bureau alleged irregularities in the appointment of

consultant by the Respondent No.3 for waiver of demurrage.

12. That apart from above scrutinizes and challenges, there was

further scrutiny by Audit of all the five sidings of Respondent

No.3, being at Ukai Songarh, Sevaliys, Dhuvaran,

Gandhinagar Capital and Sikka in October 2003, in respect to

the waiver of the Demurrage, by the Comptroller & Auditor

General of India, which after enquiry revealed that:

a) The reasons were mentioned in a casual and routine

manner against each of the detention cases. They were

neither based on facts nor were they valid for allowing

waiver. Further, the verification of cases of waiver

allowed on grounds of bunching and simultaneous

placement of rakes revealed that delivery lines were, in

fact, available for placement in the sidings. Therefore,

the reasons furnished were, thus, not genuine. The

reasons such as round the clock working by the Railway

and delay in clearance of consignments by Excise

Department were not valid because round the clock

15
 working was introduced with the consent of parties and

non-clearance of consignments by Excise Department

is a matter to be resolved by the Respondent No.3.

b) The waiver of demurrage charges of around 55 per cent

in 1991-92 abruptly increased to 71 per cent in 1992-

93. The increasing trend continued in subsequent years

and was 89 per cent in 2001-02. The increase coincided

with the appointment of middleman by GEB (April 1992)

for pursuing demurrage cases with the Railway.

Remuneration of the middleman was directly linked with

the amount of demurrage waived. The jump from 55 per

cent to 89 per cent waiver in monetary terms amounted

to Rs. 22.50 crore, which could be directly attributed to

the involvement of middleman. The unintended

beneficiary of the Railway’s excessive and unjustified

use of discretionary powers of waiver was the

middleman who received Rs. 5.15 crore from the

respondent No.3 for his scurvies in effecting a waiver of

about Rs. 61.96 crore during this period.

c) The directives issued by the Railway Board from time to

time have proved ineffective, reflecting a need to

strengthen the system through better internal control

like obtaining finance concurrence by the authorities

before exercising discretionary powers of demurrage

16
 charges. The system of giving only broad reasons for

waiver in respect of large sidings where demurrage is

waived periodically also requires a review.

d) The Non-observance of directives issued by the

Railway Board in March 1995 for not waiving the

demurrage charges by more than 25pe cent resulted in

extra waiver of Rs. 41. 58 crore in respect of five sidings

of Respondent No.3 alone for the period form 1995-96

to 2003-04.

11. That when the aforesaid matter was brought to the notice of

Railway Administration in April 2004, wherein the Railway

Administration without considering the facts and

circumstances of the case stated that :

a) The engagement of middleman was an internal issue of

Respondent No.3 and Railway Administration was not

aware and can not authenticate the details regarding

appointment of middleman and payment of commission

thereto.

b) The waiver of demurrage charges has been done as per

merit of each case keeping in view the instructions

issued by Board.

17
12. That the said contention of the Railway Administration was

stated to be not tenable because of the following reasons:

i) That while the Railway Administration may not be aware

of the exact terms and conditions of engagement of

middleman by Respondent no.3, they were seized of

the mater and had even expressed their views to State

Government that it was an unhealthy arrangement

prone to promote unethical practices. In view of this

there was a great need for Railways to observe strictly

the directives of Railway Board regarding waiver of

demurrage.

II) That Audit has pointed out several cases where the

waiver was not justified and done in a routine manner

far beyond the limits prescribed by Railway Board.

That the matter was also brought to the notice of Railway

Board in September 2004.

That in pursuance to the above findings the Union Audit

Reports (Railways) 2003-2004 was issued by The Comptroller

& Auditor General of India.

The copy of the relevant extracts of the Union Audit Reports

( Railways) 2003-2004 issued by The Comptroller & Auditor

General of India is annexed herewith and marked as

ANNEXURE P- 5.

18
13. Further in pursuance of the said report the Union Audit Reports

(Railways) 2003-2004 issued by The Comptroller & Auditor

General of India, the Lok Sabha Secretariat ( Public Accounts

Committee Branch ) asked for the detailed information in the

form of :

“ List of points for post evidence information from the

ministry of railways( Railway Board ) on PARA No.2.3.1

of the report of the C & AG OF India for the year ended

March 2004, Union Government (Railways), No.8 of

2005 relating to “injudicious waiver of demurrage

charges”

The said information was asked from Respondent

No.1&2 wherein the question related to each and every aspect

of the demurrage and its waiver along with the reasons of

waiver of demurrage to Respondent No.3 and the irregularities

happened therein was specifically been questioned by the

Lok Sabha Secretariat ( Public Accounts Committee Branch).

That as the aforesaid list of points was to be answered,

the Dy. Director Traffic Comml (Rates) of Railway Board wrote

a letter dated 16.09.2005 to the General Manager, Western

Railways, Mumbai, and requested to furnish the requisite

information.

That to the utter shock and surprise, till date, the

Respondent No.1 & 2 did not answer to the said information,

19
 as asked by Lok Sabha Secretariat (Public Accounts

Committee Branch). That as the respondent being silent on

the said questions and not giving reply to the same, it

specifically infers that there is a huge scam going on in the

garb of waiver of demurrage charges, in which the

involvement of top officials of railways is there, thus causing

huge loss of Public money.

The copy of the said list of points asked by Lok Sabha

Secretariat (Public Accounts Committee Branch).and letter

dated 16.09.2005 are annexed herewith and marked as

ANNEXURE P-6( colly).

14. Further it is submitted that the respondent also did not

assessed the loss of earning capacity of the wagons, due to

their non-release within the permissible prescribed time while

granting waiver of demurrage charges during the period under

review.

It is also pertinent to mention that the respondent

No.1&2 did not made any law and system to prohibit the

middle men in waiver of demurrage charges in the Railways.

Further the respondent No 1 & 2 also did not bother to know

as to “How did the middle men get the work done pertaining to

the waiver of demurrage charges, when he is not directly

involved in the loading/unloading of wagons”. Further the

respondent No.1 & 2 did not take any effective action , after it

was established in October 2002 that respondent NO.3 had

20
 appointed a middleman and that his remuneration was directly

linked to the extent to which waiver of demurrage charges was

obtained.

That the respondent No.1 & 2 also did not enquire about

the factum of appointment of the agents/consultants any other

State Electricity Board or any other consignee/consignor ,

even after the establishment of the fact that the irregularities

in waiver of demurrage were also been caused due to

involvement of middlemen ( as respondent No.4 in case of

Gujarat Electricity Board )

Further the cases where the waiver of demurrage

charges exceeds 50% of the power conferred on an officer,

even if no reason are being recorded in writing, no steps are

been taken Against the erring officials in this regard.

That the situation has become more worse and there is

no proper system in the Railways to monitor periodically the

compliance by various Railway Zones/Divisions of the Railway

Board’s instructions on various matters such as calculation of

time, waiver of demurrage changes etc.

15. That in reference to the aforesaid it is pertinent to mention here

that after the appointment of said middleman being Chirag &

Co. by the Respondent No.3, the demurrage bill of respondent

No.3 had increased from 1.6 crores to upto 13 crores. That said

increase cleary proves the fact that the middleman deliberately

detained the railway wagons, so that so that he can get more

21
 commission. It is submitted that thesaid malafide conduct of

middleman, taking advantages of liberal rules of waiver of

demurrage and in connivance with corrupt railway officers are

causing national loss in the form of loss of earning capacity of

wagons.

16. That despite of the aforesaid repeated scrutiny and challenges

made against aforesaid malpractices being carried on by the

railway officers in the cases of the waiver of demurrage, till

date, nothing has been done by the respondent No.1 to check

and restrict the same.

17. More so, it is pertinent to mention at this juncture, that since

some very senior officers of Railways are involved in this case,

the Respondent No.2 i.e Railway Board has recommended the

case of waiver of demurrage to CVC for closure, terming this

case as a “System Failure”. It is respectfully submitted that the

aforesaid conduct of Respondent No.2 is clear cut attempt of

covering up and to shield the corrupt Railway officials, who

enriched themselves illegally and caused to huge losses to

government exchequer.

18. That in reference to the above, it is further stated that the

corruption by individual officers of Railways, who are holding

very high position in Railways and thereby are in the position of

influencing the probe by vigilance. It is therefore necessary to

22
 engage some competent independent investigating agency like

CBI, to investigate into the matter and pin point the corrupt

officers of railways who received bribes and caused huge loss

to the public exchequer and benefit to the middleman.

19. That it is also pertinent to mention that such malpractice of

waiver of demurrage by the corrupt railways officers (including

those mentioned above), has become rampant with the

passage of time causing huge loss to the railways. The

absence of any effective policy / rules and regulation and

further lack of proper control and also the non adherence of

rules and regulations on the part of the corrupt railways officers

are the root cause of such malpractices.

The petitioner by way of present writ petition has

highlighted the said malpractice in respect of respondent No.3,

which is a government body. But on the basis of the same, it

can very well be inferred that the possibility of such corrupt

practice of waiver of demurrage in other cases, all over the

country, can not be negated and has become serious issue

which require immediate consideration.

20. The petitioner craves leave to urge the following grounds in

support of the writ petition: -

GROUNDS

23
A. Because the Union Audit Reports (Railways) 2003-2004 issued

by The Comptroller & Auditor General of India ( Annexure P- )

clearly proves that the Directives issued by the Railway Board

from time to time have proved ineffective, reflecting a need to

strengthen the system through better internal control like

obtaining finance concurrence by the authorities before

exercising discretionary powers of demurrage charges. Further

the system of giving only broad reasons for waiver in respect of

large sidings where demurrage is waived periodically also

requires a review. Further there is also a need of framing an

effective policy/rules & regulation in respect to the waiver of the

demurrage in Railways thereby putting a proper check and

control on the discretion of the railways officers authorized to

waive the demurrage.

B. Because the appointment of middlemen for demurrage of

waiver on commission is encouraging corruption. It is further

submitted that the unintended beneficiary of the Railway’s

excessive and unjustified use of discretionary powers of

waiver is the middleman. Further the engagement of

middleman for waiver of demurrage on commission basis is an

unhealthy arrangement prone to promote unethical practices.

C. Because, since some very senior officers of Railway are involved

in this case as stated aforesaid, the Respondent No.2 i.e

Railway Board has recommended the case of waiver of

24
 demurrage to CVC for closure, terming this case as a “ System

Failure”. It is respectfully submitted that the aforesaid conduct

of Respondent No.2 is clear cut attempt of covering up and to

shield the corrupt Railway officials, who enriched themselves

illegally and caused to huge losses to government exchequer.

D. Because as per the ministry of railways( Railway Board ) on

PARA No.2.3.1 of the report of the C & AG OF India for the

year ended March 2004, Union Government (Railways), No.8

of 2005 relating to “ injudicious waiver of demurrage charges”,

the reasons as mentioned by Respondent No.3 for waiver of

demurrage are made in a casual and routine manner against

each of the detention cases. Further the said reasons were

neither based on facts nor were they valid for allowing waiver.

It is submitted that the verification of cases of waiver, which

were allowed on grounds of bunching and simultaneous

placement of rakes, revealed that delivery lines were, in fact,

available for placement in the sidings. Therefore the reasons

furnished were, thus, not genuine. Further the reasons such

as round the clock working by the Railway and delay in

clearance of consignments by Excise Department were not

valid because round the clock working was introduced with the

consent of parties and non-clearance of consignments by

Excise Department is a matter to be resolved by Respondent

No.3.

25
E. Because after the appointment of said middleman being

Respondent No.4 by the Respondent No.3, the demurrage bill

of respondent No.3 had increased from 1.6 crores to upto 13

crores. That said increase clearly proves the fact that the

middleman deliberately detained the railway wagons, so that

he can get more commission. It is submitted that the said

malafide conduct of middleman by taking advantages of liberal

rules of waiver of demurrage and in connivance with corrupt

railway officers are causing national loss in the form of loss of

earning capacity of Railway wagons.

G. Because in the facts and circumstances of the present case

clearly proves that the Railways officers are not observing the

directives of Railway Board regarding waiver of demurrage.

H. Because the ministry of railways( Railway Board ) on PARA

No.2.3.1 of the report of the C & AG OF India for the year

ended March 2004, Union Government (Railways), No.8 of

2005 relating to “ injudicious waiver of demurrage charges”,

has clearly pointed out several cases where the waiver was

not justified and done in a routine manner far beyond the limits

prescribed by Railway Board.

I. Because the ministry of railways ( Railway Board ) on PARA

No.2.3.1 of the report of the C & AG OF India for the year

26
 ended March 2004, Union Government (Railways), No.8 of

2005 relating to “ injudicious waiver of demurrage charges”,

also revealed that the waiver of demurrage charges of around

55 per cent in 1991-92 abruptly increased to 71 per cent in

1992-93. The said increasing trend continued in subsequent

years and was 89 per cent in 2001-02. The increase coincided

with the appointment of middleman by respondent No.3 in

April 1992 for pursuing demurrage cases with the Railway. It is

also submitted that the remuneration of the middleman was

directly linked with the amount of demurrage waived. Further

the jump from 55 per cent to 89 per cent waiver in monetary

terms amounted to Rs. 22.50 crore, which could be directly

attributed to the involvement of middleman. The unintended

beneficiary of the Railway’s excessive and unjustified use of

discretionary powers of waiver, was the middleman who

received Rs. 5.15 crore from the respondent No.3 for his

scurvies in effecting a waiver of about Rs. 61.96 crore during

this period.

J. Because the Non-observance of directives issued by the

Railway Board in March 1995 for not waiving the demurrage

charges by more than 25 percent resulted in extra waiver of

Rs. 41. 58 crore in respect of five sidings of Respondent No.3

alone for the period form 1995-96 to 2003-04.

27
K. Because there is total apathy, deliberate neglect by

Respondent No.1 and 2 while dealing with the issues related to

demurrage charges and its waiver. The said neglect is being

caused deliberately, malafidely and illegally, at the behest of

certain corrupt top officials of railways, as these officers are

beneficiaries in such cases.

L. Because in reference to the aforesaid facts it is clear that there

are various corrupt practices going on in Railway Department

while dealing with the issues related to waiver of Demurrage

charges in utter disregard to the interest of Railways, thereby

causing huge loss of public money. That certain Railways

officers empowered to waive the Demurrage charges, misuse

their discretionary powers by acting arbitrarily in favour of the

consumer/contractors/middleman causing grave prejudice to

the Indian Railways.

M. Because in absence of any definite policy/rule/regulation etc.

the railway officers in connivance with middleman etc. are

misusing the waiver of demurrage for their own interest

causing huge pecuniary loss to Indian Railways.

N. Because the irregularity, abnormality being caused while waiving

the Demurrage as highlighted by way of present writ petition, is

well evident on the basis of some relevant documents in

respect of the Respondent No.3. But the said malpractice also

28
 points out the clear possibility that such malpractices are being

carried on in other cases of waiver of demurrage apart from

Respondent No.3. Further, there is a possibility of a very big

racket going on in waiver of demurrage, in collusion with

corrupt railway officers and middleman wherein railways suffers

huge losses.

O. Because the corruption by individual officers of Railways, who

are holding very high position in Railways and thereby are in

the position of influencing the probe by vigilance. It is therefore

necessary to engage some competent independent

investigating agency like CBI , to investigate into the matter and

pin point the corrupt officers of railways who received bribes

and caused huge loss to the public exchequer and benefit to

the middleman.

P. . Because the respondent has also did not assessed the loss of

earning capacity of the wagons, due to their non-release within

the permissible prescribed time while granting waiver of

demurrage charges during the period under review.

Q. Because the respondent No.1&2 did not made any law and

system to prohibit the middle men in waiver of demurrage

charges in the Railways. Further the respondent No 1 & 2 also

did not bother to know as to “How did the middle men get the

work done pertaining to the waiver of demurrage charges,

29
 when he is not directly involved in the loading/unloading of

wagons”. Further the respondent No.1 & 2 did not take any

effective action , after it was established in October 2002 that

respondent NO.3 had appointed a middleman and that his

remuneration was directly linked to the extent to which waiver

of demurrage charges was obtained.

R. Because the respondent No.1 & 2 also did not enquire about the

factum of appointment of the agents/consultants any other

State Electricity Board or any other consignee/consignor , even

after the establishment of the fact that the irregularities in

waiver of demurrage were also been caused due to

involvement of middlemen ( as respondent No.4 in case of

Gujarat Electricity Board )

S. Because the cases where the waiver of demurrage charges

exceeds 50% of the power conferred on an officer, even if no

reason are being recorded in writing for the said waiver, no

steps are been taken Against the erring officials in this regard

by the respondent No1 & 2.

T. Because there is no proper system in the Railways to monitor

periodically the compliance by various Railway Zones/Divisions

of the Railway Board’s instructions on various matters such as

calculation of time, waiver of demurrage changes etc.

30
5. The petitioner has not sought for or filed any other writ petition

or petitions before the High Court or the Supreme Court for

the same or similar relief. That the petitioner has no other

alternate efficacious remedy but to approach this Hon’ble

Court under the extraordinary writ jurisdiction.

PRAYER

That in view of the facts and grounds mentioned herein above,

it is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that your Lordships may

graciously be pleased to: -

(a) grant for issuance of writ, order or direction in the nature of

mandamus or any other writ directing the respondent no.1 to

frame policy/rules & regulations in respect to waiver of

demurrage

(b) grant for issuance of writ, order or direction in the nature of

mandamus or any other writ for direction of enquiry into

various doubtful cases of waiver of demurrage, through an

independent agency like CBI.

(c) grant for issuance of writ, order or direction in the nature of

mandamus or any other writ directing to restrict/prohibit the

middlemen in waiver of demurrage charges.

(d) pass such other of further orders as this Hon’ble Court may

deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the

case.

PETITIONERS

31
 through

New Delhi

Filed On:: __.7.2006 (Mohit Chaudhary) (Manish Jain)

Advocate for the petitioner

For Kings & Alliance

E-45, Lajpat Nagar I

New Delhi – 1100 24

Phones: 011-29815213, 29811260, 9810663997

32
 SYNOPSIS/LIST OF DATES

That the petitioner by way of this petition under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India begs to approach this Hon’ble Court with a view

to bring to the notice of this Hon’ble Court an organized institutional

Corruption the shocking state of affairs showing total apathy,

deliberate neglect by the Respondent No.1 and 2 while dealing with

the issues related to demurrage charges and its waiver. The said

neglect is being caused deliberately, malafidely and illegally, at the

behest of certain top officials of railways, as these officers are

beneficiaries in such cases.

The petitioner by way of present writ petition want to draw the

attention of this Hon’ble Court towards the various corrupt practices

going on in Railway Department while dealing with the issues related

to waiver of Demurrage charges in utter disregard to the interest of

Railways, thereby causing huge loss of public money. That certain

Railways officers empowered to waive the Demurrage charges,

misuse their discretionary powers by acting arbitrarily in favour of the

consumer/contractors causing grave prejudice to the Indian Railways.

Further, present petition also highlights the fact that the

present directives/instructions of railway Board in respect to the

waiver of demurrage , which are otherwise obsolete, are also not

been followed by the officers of the railways.

That the petitioner herein, after coming across CAG

Report , Lok Sabha Questionnaire and other certain relevant

documentary information, was shocked to realize as to that how the

33
authorities along with the middlemen etc. are misusing powers with

regard to the discretion of waiver of Demurrage Charges, for

personal interest causing huge pecuniary loss to Indian Railways and

at the cost of public exchequer. And all this is happening in absence

of any definite policy/rule/regulation etc.

It is submitted that the said irregularity being caused

while arbitrarily waiving the Demurrage as highlighted by way of

present writ petition, is though on the basis of some relevant

documents in respect of the Respondent No.3. But the said

malpractice also points out the clear possibility that such malpractices

are being carried on in other cases of waiver of demurrage apart from

Respondent No.3. Further, there is a possibility of a very big racket

going on in waiver of demurrage, in collusion with corrupt railway

officers and middleman wherein Railways suffers huge losses.

That, the present petition also gathers support from the

Union Audit Reports (Railways) 2003-2004 issued by The Comptroller

& Auditor General of India. Thereby it clearly proves that the

Directives issued by the Railway Board from time to time have proved

ineffective, reflecting a need to strengthen the system through better

internal control like obtaining finance concurrence by the authorities

before exercising discretionary powers of demurrage charges. Further

the system of giving only broad reasons for waiver in respect of large

sidings where demurrage is waived periodically also requires a

review. There is also a need of framing an effective policy/rules &

regulation in respect to the waiver of the demurrage in Railways

34
 thereby putting a proper check and control on the discretion of the

railways officers authorized to waive the demurrage.

Apart from the aforesaid there should be an

enquiry/investigation against the corrupt railway officers, who while

acting as the officers concern waived the demurrage without any

justified reasons, at the cost of the interest of Railways.

April, 1992 That in reference to the aforesaid it is submitted that the

Respondent No.3, receives coal and residual fuel oil in

their five sidings at Ukai Songarh, Sevaliys, Dhuvaran,

Gandhinagar Capital and Sikka. That in April, 1992,

Respondent No.3 awarded the contract for consultancy

services for railway claims including waiver of

demurrage charges above 50 per cent, train load/wagon

long adjustment and missing wagon adjustment to

Respondent No.4 . The Respondent No.4 acted as

middleman in between the respondent no.3 and

Railways. That the said contract was awarded on a trial

basis and the scope of service and commission charges

pertaining to the contract were to be decided after

observing the contractor’s performance during the trial

period.

1.11.1992 to

31.12 2002 That after the said contract was awarded, during the trial

period, the waiver of demurrage rose from 50- 55 per

cent to above 75 per cent. Further, based on the

35
performance assessment, the contract was extended

from 1 November 1992 to 31 October 1994. Further, the

above said contract was first put up to the Board of

directors of respondent No.3, on 30 January 1995

wherein the next extension from 1 November 1994 to 31

October 1995 was approved. That later on, the said

contract was extended from time to time upto 31 March

1998.

That in December 1997, it was decided by

respondent No.3, to go for a limited tender for awarding

the contract, as invitation of public tender could invite

criticism. Accordingly, in March 1998, the tenders were

invited from 9 parties of whom 7 quoted and were

regarded as technically acceptable. That the being the

L-1 party was awarded the contract from 1 April 1998 to

31 March 1999. Further, the said contract was extended

from time to time upto 31 December 2002. That during

the said period of contract, the said middleman being

Respondent No.4, received huge payments in the form

of commission for waiving the demurrage beyond

reasonability and the respondent No.3 also derived

benefit .

That it is pertinent to mention here that In March

1995, the Railway Board stipulated that normally more

than 25 per cent of the accrued amount should not be

waived and reasons for waiver above ten per cent

36
should be recorded. However, Audit scrutiny of records

of Ukai, Songarh Stations in respect of Respondent

No.3, in September 1995 revealed that above

instructions of the Railway Board were not being

followed. Moreover, in almost all cases, waiver was

being allowed up to 95 per cent.

Further, in reply to the said Audit Note of November

1995, the local Railway Administration, in the month of

February 1998 had stated that all concerned had been

advised to follow the Railway Board’s directives while

considering the request of Respondent No.3 for waiver

of demurrage charges.

That from the aforesaid conduct of respondent No.3 and

the railways authorities, it is quite apparent that the

Respondent NO.3 despite being wholly owned by the

Government of Gujarat and having no secret funds for

giving bribes, have devised a novel system of pocketing

public money, in connivance with certain Railways

officers, by appointing a middleman, who is being paid a

hefty sum of 25% of the waived demurrage amount.

As stated above the Respondent No.3 is booking coal

rakes from the Colliery to their power Houses situated in

Gujarat. The rakes so received are given 10 hours for

unloading. In case more than the stipulated hours are

taken for unloading, demurrage charges are recovered

from Respondent No.3. However, the competent

37
Railway Officials waive the demurrage charges based

on the merits of each case. Since the demurrage

charges are not considered a source of earnings for

railways and also the Respondent NO.3 being a

government organization, demurrage charges of the

Respondent NO.3 are very liberally waived to the tune of

80% to 90%. In-spite of this, the Respondent NO.3 have

appointed Respondent No 4, as middleman supposedly

to get waiver of demurrage from the Railway Officials

and in return, he is getting 25% of the amount waived,

as commission. Further considering the total accrual of

demurrage, which is to the tune of Rs. 1 crore to Rs.

1.25 crores a month, the middleman is getting about Rs.

10 lakhs a month as Commission.

It is submitted that the said practice on the part of the

Respondent NO.3 is nothing but institutionalization of

corruption in which a Government Department is

appointing a middleman to deal with another

Government Department and commission is being paid

to the Middleman on percentage basis.

Further, it is also submitted that the Railway Board, vide

their letter No. 98/TE1/10/2 Pt. II dated 26-05-2001 had

asked the Respondent NO.3 to explain about this

corrupt practice. However, the Respondent No.3 denied

that they have appointed any middleman despite the fact

that middleman has been appointed officially and an

38
 agreement with the middleman exists in which payment

of 25% to 35% of the amount waived is being paid

through cheque .

It is also submitted that the respondent NO.3 paid Rs.

5.15 crores to the middleman for facilitating waiver of

demurrage from Railway Officers. Further, in this way

5.15 crores of public money has been pocketed by these

people.

That the aforesaid irregularities were also been

challenged/pointed out by one Mr. G.D Sharma, who was

an Officer on Special Duty, Western Railways,

Ahemdabad, before various Authorities being Anti

Corruption Bureau , SR. CM BRC, Advisor Vigilance of

Railway Board, Supdt. of Police CBI on various

occasions.

3.12.2003 That in response to the said letter of Mr. G.D Sharma,

highlighting the engagement of middleman by respondent

No.3, for getting waiver of demurrage charges from the

railways, the Anti Corruption Bureau issued a letter dated

19.12.2002 to said Mr. G.D Sharma, stating therein that

the information provided by Mr. G.D Sharma is confirmed

and the detailed enquiry report has been sent to authority

for further necessary action.

That apart from the said challenges to the “waiver of

demurrage”, the said Mr. G.D Sharma in his letter dated

3.12.2003 to Advisor Vigilance of Railway Board, Supdt.

39
of Police CBI, specifically pointed out the names of

certain corrupt railway officers, stating as under:

“Certain Officers in Railways are the beneficiaries

of this practice. Shri Manmohan Singh at present

working as Deputy Chief Commercial Manager

(Freight & Marketing), W.Rly., Churchgate,

Mumbai, who worked as Asstt. Commercial

Manager and Divisional Commercial Manager ,

Ahmedabad and then Senior Devisional

Commercial Manager of Vadodara is the

mastermind who has devised this system in

partnership with Shri Surendrabhai Shah of M/s.

Chirag & Co., Vadodara who was a labour supplier

for Parcel Handling.

Shri Arun Dubey : The earstwhile Chief

Commercial Manager, w.Rly., Churchgate, now

Additional Member (C&S), Railway Board, New

Delhi is the chief patron of Shri Surendra Shah

of M/s. Chirag & Co., Shri Manmohan Singh, ex

Sr. Divisional Commercial Manager, Baroda and

now Dy. Chief Commercial Manager (Freight &

Marketing), Churchgate, Shri R.K. Meena ,

Divisional Railway Manager, Jaipur- who was

earlier posted as Officer on Special Duty at

40
 Ahmcbabad, Shri K.C Jena the then Divisional

Railway Manager,Boroda and now posted as

Chief Operatrions Manager, Churchgate, and

Shri Ashutosh Chandra, Sr. Divl. Commercial

Manager, Ahmedabad, W.Rly. These officers

regularly received bride money from Shri

Surendrabagi Shah, the middleman and liberally

received waived demurrage of G.E.B.”

Further, the said contract for consultancy services for

railway claims including waiver of demurrage as awarded

to middleman being respondent No.4, by Respondent

No.3, was discontinued with effect from December 2002,

as the Anti Corruption Bureau alleged irregularities in the

appointment of consultant by the Respondent No.3 for

waiver of demurrage.

2004 to 2005 That apart from above scrutinizes and challenges,

there was further scrutiny by Audit of all the five sidings

of Respondent No.3, being at Ukai Songarh, Sevaliys,

Dhuvaran, Gandhinagar Capital and Sikka in October

2003, in respect to the waiver of the Demurrage, by the

Comptroller & Auditor General of India, which after

enquiry revealed that:

a) The reasons were mentioned in a casual and

routine manner against each of the detention

41
cases. They were neither based on facts nor were

they valid for allowing waiver. Further, the

verification of cases of waiver allowed on grounds

of bunching and simultaneous placement of rakes

revealed that delivery lines were, in fact, available

for placement in the sidings. Therefore, the

reasons furnished were, thus, not genuine. The

reasons such as round the clock working by the

Railway and delay in clearance of consignments

by Excise Department were not valid because

round the clock working was introduced with the

consent of parties and non-clearance of

consignments by Excise Department is a matter

to be resolved by the Respondent No.3.

b) The waiver of demurrage charges of around

55 per cent in 1991-92 abruptly increased to 71

per cent in 1992-93. The increasing trend

continued in subsequent years and was 89 per

cent in 2001-02. The increase coincided with the

appointment of middleman by GEB (April 1992)

for pursuing demurrage cases with the Railway.

Remuneration of the middleman was directly

linked with the amount of demurrage waived. The

jump from 55 per cent to 89 per cent waiver in

monetary terms amounted to Rs. 22.50 crore,

42
 which could be directly attributed to the

involvement of middleman. The unintended

beneficiary of the Railway’s excessive and

unjustified use of discretionary powers of waiver

was the middleman who received Rs. 5.15 crore

from the respondent No.3 for his scurvies in

effecting a waiver of about Rs. 61.96 crore during

this period.

c) The directives issued by the Railway Board from

time to time have proved ineffective, reflecting a

need to strengthen the system through better

internal control like obtaining finance concurrence

by the authorities before exercising discretionary

powers of demurrage charges. The system of

giving only broad reasons for waiver in respect of

large sidings where demurrage is waived

periodically also requires a review.

d) The Non-observance of directives issued by the

Railway Board in March 1995 for not waiving the

demurrage charges by more than 25pe cent

resulted in extra waiver of Rs. 41. 58 crore in

respect of five sidings of Respondent No.3 alone

for the period form 1995-96 to 2003-04.

That when the aforesaid matter was brought to the

notice of Railway Administration in April 2004, wherein

43
the Railway Administration without considering the facts

and circumstances of the case stated that :

a) The engagement of middleman was an internal

issue of Respondent No.3 and Railway

Administration was not aware and can not

authenticate the details regarding appointment of

middleman and payment of commission thereto.

b) The waiver of demurrage charges has been

done as per merit of each case keeping in view

the instructions issued by Board.

That the said contention of the Railway Administration

was stated to be not tenable because of the following

reasons:

i) That while the Railway Administration may

not be aware of the exact terms and

conditions of engagement of middleman by

Respondent no.3, they were seized of the

mater and had even expressed their views

to State Government that it was an

unhealthy arrangement prone to promote

unethical practices. In view of this there

was a great need for Railways to observe

strictly the directives of Railway Board

regarding waiver of demurrage.

44
 II) That Audit has pointed out several cases

where the waiver was not justified and

done in a routine manner far beyond the

limits prescribed by Railway Board.

That the matter was also brought to the notice of

Railway Board in September 2004.

9.09.2005 Further in pursuance of the said report the Union Audit

Reports (Railways) 2003-2004 issued by The

Comptroller & Auditor General of India, the Lok Sabha

Secretariat ( Public Accounts Committee Branch ) asked

for the detailed information in the form of :

“ List of points for post evidence

information from the ministry of railways(

Railway Board ) on PARA No.2.3.1 of the

report of the C & AG OF India for the year

ended March 2004, Union Government

(Railways), No.8 of 2005 relating to

“injudicious waiver of demurrage charges”

The said information was asked from Respondent

No.1&2 wherein the question related to each and every

aspect of the demurrage and its waiver along with the

reasons of waiver of demurrage to Respondent No.3

and the irregularities happened therein was specifically

45
 been questioned by the Lok Sabha Secretariat ( Public

Accounts Committee Branch).

16.09.2005 That as the aforesaid list of points was to be answered,

the Dy. Director Traffic Comml (Rates) of Railway Board

wrote a letter dated 16.09.2005 to the General Manager,

Western Railways, Mumbai, and requested to furnish

the requisite information.

That to the utter shock and surprise, till date, the

Respondent No.1 & 2 did not answer to the said

information, as asked by Lok Sabha Secretariat (Public

Accounts Committee Branch). That as the respondent

being silent on the said questions and not giving reply to

the same, it specifically infers that there is a huge scam

going on in the garb of waiver of demurrage charges, in

which the involvement of top officials of railways is

there, thus causing huge loss of Public money.

June 2007 Hence the present writ petition in public interest

46
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI A T NEW DELHI
CIVIL EXTRA ORDINARY JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. OF 2007.

In the matter of: -

PVCHR (Peoples Vigilance Committee for Human Rights)

& Anr … Petitioners

VERSUS
Ministry of Railways & Ors. …Respondents
INDEX
Sr.No. Particulars Pages Court
Fees
Rs. P
1. Urgent Application

2. Letter of Service/Notice of Motion

3. Memo of Parties

4. List of Dates & Events

5. Writ Petition alongwith Affidavit

6. Annexure-P1
True copy of the circular of
Respondent No.1 in respect of
the Rules regarding waiver of
Demurrage.

7. Annexure-P2
True copy to the Table bearing
the terms and conditions of the
contract awarded to Respondent
No.4 i.e M/s Chirag & Co. over
the period 1992 to 2002

8. Annexure-P3
True copy of table bearing the
payments made to the
middleman and benefit derived
by the Respondent No.3

9. Annexure-P4( colly).
True copy of The copy of the
letters dated 18.07.2002,
19.12.2002,20.12.2002,3.12.200
3

47
10. Annexure-P5
True copy of The copy of the
relevant extracts of the Union
Audit Reports ( Railways) 2003-
2004 issued by The Comptroller
& Auditor General of India

11. Annexure-P6( Colly)

True copy of The copy of the list
of points asked by Lok Sabha
Secretariat (Public Accounts
Committee Branch).and letter
dated 16.09.2005

12. Application for Stay alongwith

Affidavit U/s 151 C.P.C

14. Application for exemption

alongwith Affidavit U/s 151 C.P.C

13. Vakalatnama

Filed By:

M/s. KINGS AND ALLIANCE (Advocates & Solicitors)

MOHIT CHAUDHARY & MANISH JAIN ADV.
E-45, Lajpat Nagar I, New Delhi – 1100 24
Phones: 011-29815213, 29811260, 9891422415, 9810663997
ADV. FOR PETITIONER.
Filed On:__.06.2007

48
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI A T NEW DELHI
CIVIL EXTRA ORDINARY JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. OF 2007.

In the matter of: -

PVCHR (Peoples Vigilance Committee for Human Rights)

& Anr … Petitioners

VERSUS
Ministry of Railways & Ors. …Respondents

PAPE R -- B O O K

WITH
I.A. NO. OF 2006
APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 151CPC

(FOR INDEX KINDLY SEE INSIDE)

Filed By:

M/s. KINGS AND ALLIANCE (Advocates & Solicitors)

MOHIT CHAUDHARY & MANISH JAIN ADV.
E-45, Lajpat Nagar I, New Delhi – 1100 24
Phones: 011-29815213, 29811260, 9891422415, 9810663997
ADV. FOR PETITIONER.
Filed On:__.06.2007

49
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI A T NEW DELHI
CIVIL EXTRA ORDINARY JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. OF 2007.

In the matter of: -

PVCHR (Peoples Vigilance Committee for Human Rights)

& Anr … Petitioners

VERSUS
Ministry of Railways & Ors. …Respondents

To
The Deputy Registrar,
Delhi High Court,
New Delhi
URGENT APPLICATION
Sir
Will you kindly treat the accompanying writ as an urgent one.
The ground of urgency is :

(a) grant an ad interim ex-parte stay, thereby directing the respondent

No.1 & 2 , to keep on hold and stay, all the cases of waiver of
demurrage in relation to respondent No.3

Filed by
New Delhi

M/s. KINGS AND ALLIANCE (Advocates & Solicitors)

MOHIT CHAUDHARY & MANISH JAIN ADV.
E-45, Lajpat Nagar I, New Delhi – 1100 24
Phones: 011-29815213, 29811260, 9891422415, 9810663997
ADV. FOR PETITIONER.
Filed On:__.06.2007

50
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI A T NEW DELHI
CIVIL EXTRA ORDINARY JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. OF 2007.

In the matter of: -

1. PVCHR
(Peoples Vigilance Committee for Human Rights)
Through its Convener
Dr. Lenin S/o Shri Surendra Nath Singh
Registered Office at SA/4, Daulatpur, Varansi,
Uttar Pradesh

2. CHITRA
(Centre for Human Rights Initiative)
Training & Research Association)
Through its Secretary
Anup Kumar Srivastava S/O T.P.Srivastava
R/o Flat No. -2, House No. – 99,
J-Extension, Laxmi Nagar,
New Delhi – 110092 …Petitioners.

Versus

1. Ministry Of Railways,
Through The Secretary,
Rail Mantralaya,
New Delhi

2. Railway Board
Through Chaiman
Rail Mantralaya,
New Delhi

3. Gujarat Electricity Board.

Through Chairman
Gujarat Urja Vij Nigam Limited,
Sardar Patel Vidyut Bhavan,
Race Course,
Vadodara 390 007
Gujarat, India

4. M/s. Chirag & Co.,

Through its proprietor,
Shri Surendrabhai Shah
102, Yogi Darshan Appartment,
Alka Puri, Baroda-7 …Respondents

51
 NOTICE OF MOTION

TAKE NOTICE that the accompanying petition will be listed in

due course or soon thereafter as may be convenient to the Hon’ble
Court.

Filed by
New Delhi
Filed On:: __.7.2006

M/s. KINGS AND ALLIANCE (Advocates & Solicitors)

MOHIT CHAUDHARY & MANISH JAIN ADV.
E-45, Lajpat Nagar I, New Delhi – 1100 24
Phones: 011-29815213, 29811260, 9891422415, 9810663997
ADV. FOR PETITIONER.
Filed On:__.06.2007

To

1. ________________
Adv. For

2. ________________
Adv. For

52
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
CIVIL EXTRAORDINARY JURISDICTION
C.M.A. NO. OF 2007.

IN
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. OF 2007.

In the matter of: -

PVCHR (Peoples Vigilance Committee for Human Rights)

& Anr … Petitioners /Applicant

VERSUS
Ministry of Railways & Ors. …Respondents

APPLICATION FOR STAY U/S 151 CPC

TO
THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS
COMPANION JUDGES OF THE HIGH COURT OF
DELHI AT NEW DELHI

The humble application of the above

named applicant.

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. That the petitioner by way of this petition under Article 226 of

the Constitution of India begs to approach this Hon’ble Court
with a view to bring to the notice of this Hon’ble Court an
organized institutional Corruption the shocking state of affairs
showing total apathy, deliberate neglect by the Respondent
No.1 and 2 while dealing with the issues related to demurrage
charges and its waiver. The said neglect is being caused
deliberately, malafidely and illegally, at the behest of certain top
officials of railways, as these officers are beneficiaries in such
cases.
The petitioner by way of present writ petition want to
draw the attention of this Hon’ble Court towards the various
corrupt practices going on in Railway Department while dealing
with the issues related to waiver of Demurrage charges in utter

53
 disregard to the interest of Railways, thereby causing huge loss
of public money. That certain Railways officers empowered to
waive the Demurrage charges, misuse their discretionary
powers by acting arbitrarily in favour of the
consumer/contractors causing grave prejudice to the Indian
Railways.

2. That the facts and submissions of the applicant are fully set
out in the accompanying writ petition and in order to avoid
repetition and prolixity and the facts and grounds stated
therein may be deemed to be incorporated in this application.
The applicant would refer to the same at the time of hearing of
the present application.

3. It is submitted that despite of the facts and circumstances as

mentioned in the accompanying writ petition, it has further
come to the knowledge of the petitioners, that the respondent
No.4 acting on behalf of the respondent No.3, in connivance
with the corrupt railways officials, are again in the process of
waiver of the demurrage, in the month of June, wherein the
said corrupt officials of railways by misusing their discretionary
power, will waive the huge mount of demurrage charges
thereby causing grave prejudice to railways and huge loss of
public money.

4. Therefore it becomes necessary and expedient and also in the

interest of public that the respondent No.1 & 2 be immediately
directed to keep on hold and maintain status quo, all the cases
of waiver of demurrage in relation to respondent No.3, during
the pendency of the present case or till further order of this
Hon’ble Court.

5. The balance of convenience is in favour of the petitioner. It is,

therefore, submitted that there is a prima facie good case in
favour of the applicant. It will be in the interest of justice that

54
 this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to grant stay as is prayed
herein.

6. The application is made bonafide and made in the interest of

justice.
PRAYER
It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that your Lordships
may graciously be pleased to: -

(a) grant an ad-interim ex-parte stay, thereby directing the

respondent No.1 & 2 , to keep on hold and to maintain status
quo on all the cases of waiver of demurrage in relation to
respondent No.3, during the pendency of the present case or
till further order of this Hon’ble Court ;and/or;

b) pass such other order or orders which this Hon’ble Court may
deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.

Applicants/Petitioners

through
New Delhi
Filed On:: __.6.2007
M/s. KINGS AND ALLIANCE (Advocates & Solicitors)
MOHIT CHAUDHARY & MANISH JAIN ADV.
E-45, Lajpat Nagar I, New Delhi – 1100 24
Phones: 011-29815213, 29811260, 9891422415, 9810663997
ADV. FOR PETITIONER.

55
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI A T NEW DELHI

CIVIL EXTRA ORDINARY JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. OF 2006.

MEMO OF PARTIES

1. PVCHR
(Peoples Vigilance Committee for Human Rights)
Through its Convener
Dr. Lenin S/o Shri Surendra Nath Singh
Registered Office at SA/4, Daulatpur, Varansi,
Uttar Pradesh

2. CHITRA
(Centre for Human Rights Initiative)
Training & Research Association)
Through its Secretary
Anup Kumar Srivastava S/O T.P.Srivastava
R/o Flat No. -2, House No. – 99,
J-Extension, Laxmi Nagar,
New Delhi – 110092 …Petitioners.

Versus

1. Ministry Of Railways,
Through The Secretary,
Rail Mantralaya,
New Delhi

2. Railway Board
Through Chaiman
Rail Mantralaya,
New Delhi

3. Gujarat Electricity Board.

Through Chairman
Gujarat Urja Vij Nigam Limited,
Sardar Patel Vidyut Bhavan,
Race Course,
Vadodara 390 007
Gujarat, India

56
4. M/s. Chirag & Co.,
Through its proprietor,
Shri Surendrabhai Shah
102, Yogi Darshan Appartment,
Alka Puri, Baroda-7 …Respondents

Applicants/Petitioners

through
New Delhi
Filed On:: __.6.2007

M/s. KINGS AND ALLIANCE (Advocates & Solicitors)

MOHIT CHAUDHARY & MANISH JAIN ADV.
E-45, Lajpat Nagar I, New Delhi – 1100 24
Phones: 011-29815213, 29811260, 9891422415, 9810663997
ADV. FOR PETITIONER.

57
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
CIVIL EXTRAORDINARY JURISDICTION
C.M.A. NO. OF 2007.

IN
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. OF 2007.

In the matter of: -

PVCHR (Peoples Vigilance Committee for Human Rights)

& Anr … Petitioners /Applicant

VERSUS
Ministry of Railways & Ors. …Respondents

APPLICATION ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

UNDER SECTION 151CPC
TO
THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS
COMPANION JUDGES OF THE HIGH COURT OF
PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

The humble application of the above

named applicant.

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. That the applicants /petitioners has filed the accompanying Writ

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

2. That for sake of prolixity the applicant is not repeating the

contents of the Writ Petition.

3. That along with the said Writ Petition the Applicant has filed certain
documents, some of which are dim, illegible and do not have proper
left hand margin, which are relied upon by the applicant. That the
matter is urgent in nature as the petitioner has sought for some
urgent prayers, thus due to paucity of time the applicant is not in
position to get the documents typed.

58
4. That it is expedient in interest of justice that the said Writ Petition,
filed by the applicant, may be entertained on the basis of the
documents as filed by the applicant along with the accompanying
Writ Petition.

5. That in the circumstances mentioned herein above the applicant is

filing the true and correct photocopies of the documents which are
Dim, illegible and have improper left hand margin along with the
Writ Petition. The applicant undertakes to file the better typed
copies of the documents as and when directed by the court.

6. That the present application is filed bonafide and in interest of

justice and equity.

7. That the petitioner will suffer grave and irreparable injury if the
present application is not allowed.
PRAYER
It is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble’ may be graciously
be pleased to:
A. grant exemption to the Applicant / Petitioner from filing the
documents which are dim, illegible and do not have proper
left hand margin space, that are filed along with the
accompanying Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, and may please entertain the Writ
Petition as it such, and/or,
B. pass such other or further order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may
deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the
case.

Applicants/Petitioners

through
New Delhi
Filed On:: __.6.2007
M/s. KINGS AND ALLIANCE (Advocates & Solicitors)
MOHIT CHAUDHARY & MANISH JAIN ADV.
E-45, Lajpat Nagar I, New Delhi – 1100 24

59
 Phones: 011-29815213, 29811260, 9891422415, 9810663997
ADV. FOR PETITIONER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
CIVIL EXTRAORDINARY JURISDICTION
C.M.A. NO. OF 2007.

IN
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. OF 2007.

In the matter of: -

PVCHR (Peoples Vigilance Committee for Human Rights)

& Anr … Petitioners /Applicant

VERSUS
Ministry of Railways & Ors. …Respondents

AFFIDAVIT

I, Dr. Lenin S/o Surendra Nath Singh, Aged about 36 years, R/o SA-
4, Daulatpur Varansi, Uttar Pradesh do hereby take on oath and
state as under:
1. That I am representing petitioner in the above mentioned Writ
Petition and am well conversant with the facts of the case and I am
competent to depose to this affidavit.
2. That the statement of facts contained in the Application u/s 151
CPC, are true and correct to my knowledge and the grounds of writ
petition taken in the writ petition are the legal submissions before this
Hon’ble Court.

DEPONENT

I swear that the contents of my above affidavit are true and correct
to my knowledge and the information derived from the record of the case
and nothing material is suppressed or concealed therefrom.

Verified at New Delhi on this the __st day of June, 2007

60
DEPONENT

61
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
CIVIL EXTRAORDINARY JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. OF 2007.

In the matter of: -

PVCHR (Peoples Vigilance Committee for Human Rights)

& Anr … Petitioners /Applicant

VERSUS
Ministry of Railways & Ors. …Respondents

AFFIDAVIT
I, Anup Kumar Srivastava S/o Shri Tribhuwan Prasad Srivastava, Aged
about 33 years, R/o Flat No. -2, House No. – 99, J-Extension, Laxmi
Nagar, New Delhi – 110092 do hereby take on oath and state as under:-

1. That I am the Secretary of petitioner No.2 & representing petitioner

No.2 in the above mentioned Writ Petition and am well conversant with the
facts of the case and I am competent to depose to this affidavit.
2. That the statement of facts contained in the Synopsis/List of Dates
& Writ Petition , are true and correct to my knowledge and the grounds of
writ petition taken in the writ petition are the legal submissions before this
Hon’ble Court.
3. That the annexures filed with the Writ Petition are true copies of
their respective originals.
4. That the petitioner above named has not filed any other writ petition
seeking the similar prayers and for similar relief.

I swear that the contents of my above affidavit are true and correct
to my knowledge and the information derived from the record of the case
and nothing material is suppressed or concealed therefrom.

Verified at New Delhi on this the day of June, 2007

DEPONENT

62
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
CIVIL EXTRAORDINARY JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. OF 2007.

In the matter of: -

PVCHR (Peoples Vigilance Committee for Human Rights)

& Anr … Petitioners /Applicant

VERSUS
Ministry of Railways & Ors. …Respondents

AFFIDAVIT
I, Dr. Lenin S/o Surendra Nath Singh, Aged about 36 years, R/o SA-
4, Daulatpur Varansi, Uttar Pradesh do hereby take on oath and
state as under:

1. That I am the convener of petitioner No.1 & representing petitioner

No.1 in the above mentioned Writ Petition and am well conversant with the
facts of the case and I am competent to depose to this affidavit.
2. That the statement of facts contained in the Synopsis/List of Dates
& Writ Petition , are true and correct to my knowledge and the grounds of
writ petition taken in the writ petition are the legal submissions before this
Hon’ble Court.
3. That the annexures filed with the Writ Petition are true copies of
their respective originals.
4. That the petitioner above named has not filed any other writ petition
seeking the similar prayers and for similar relief.

I swear that the contents of my above affidavit are true and correct
to my knowledge and the information derived from the record of the case
and nothing material is suppressed or concealed therefrom.

Verified at New Delhi on this the day of June, 2007

DEPONENT

63
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
CIVIL EXTRAORDINARY JURISDICTION
C.M.A. NO. OF 2007.

IN
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. OF 2007.

In the matter of: -

PVCHR (Peoples Vigilance Committee for Human Rights)

& Anr … Petitioners /Applicant

VERSUS
Ministry of Railways & Ors. …Respondents

AFFIDAVIT

I, Dr. Lenin S/o Surendra Nath Singh, Aged about 36 years, R/o SA-
4, Daulatpur Varansi, Uttar Pradesh do hereby take on oath and
state as under:
1. That I am representing petitioner in the above mentioned Writ
Petition and am well conversant with the facts of the case and I am
competent to depose to this affidavit.
2. That the statement of facts contained in the Application u/s 151
CPC for stay , are true and correct to my knowledge and the grounds of
writ petition taken in the writ petition are the legal submissions before this
Hon’ble Court.

DEPONENT

I swear that the contents of my above affidavit are true and correct
to my knowledge and the information derived from the record of the case
and nothing material is suppressed or concealed therefrom.

Verified at New Delhi on this the __st day of June, 2007

DEPONENT

64