Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. versus MIS. SHARMA COAL CO.

Decided
10 May 1996
Judges listed
K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Disposed off

Citations

Official
[1996] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 850 · 1996 INSC 684

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

Leave granted.

p. 850, margin F

Though the respondents have been served, none appears either in person or through the counsel. We have heard counsel for the appellant.

p. 850, margin F

This appeal arises from the order of the Division Bench of the Guwahati High Court in a batch of writ petitions being Civil Rule No. 1153/89 and batch passed on dated July 30, 1990. The Railway administration had prepared a preferential traffic scheme (PTS), by general order No. 71 categorising the priority articles for carriage by railways and allotted different priorities which are made in alphabetic orders A to E. Sponsored coal movement was mentioned in Category C priority and priority E would include non-sponsored coal. Subsequently by proceedings dated March, 1, 1989 the Railways modified its earlier scheme and issued general PTS Order No. 77 with effect from April 1, 1989 under which priorities were re-determined. It would appear that subsequently non-priorities/coal item was deleted from the priority scheme. When the respondents and others challenged its validity on the anvil of Art. 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, the Division Bench of the High Court without disturbing the validity of the order had given direction observing that after all the priorities enumerated in the scheme are exhausted and if the wagons remains unutilised, the wagons may be kept at the disposal of non-priority articles for carriage. Thus this appeal came to be filed by special leave.

pp. 850–851, margin G

It is seen that in order No. 75 priorities A to E were made which included sponsored coal within the meaning of the order and non-sponsored coal within the meaning of the order and non-sponsored coal provided in priority E for allotment of wagon. With regard to non-priority item E, it subsequently deleted as mentioned in paragraph E of the special leave petition which reads as "the Order No. 77 relates to PTS for allotment of wagons which came into force from 16.7.86, but non-sponsored coal referred to in priority E of PTS No. 75 was removed". It would thus be seen that non-priority coal came to be removed from the priorities mentioned in Items A to E. Therefore, the High Court obviously was of the intention to direct that if after the wagons allotted for movement to priority articles remained available, the same may be allotted for non-priority articles for carriage. We do not think that there is any impediment in the way of administration to give such allotment, instead of keeping them idle. It would be in commercial interest of the Railway administration.

p. 851, margin C

The appeal is accordingly disposed of. No. costs. R.P. Appeal disposed of .

p. 851, margin F