MAHESHWARY HANDLING AGENCY PRIVATE LIMITED versus BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF KANDLA PORT TRUST AND OTHERS

Citation: [2019] 18 S.C.R. 969 · Decided: 17-09-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: INDU MALHOTRA, SANJIV KHANNA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
969
MAHESHWARY HANDLING AGENCY
PRIVATE LIMITED
v.
BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF KANDLA PORT
TRUST AND OTHERS
(Civil Appeal No. 5277 of 2010)
SEPTEMBER 17, 2019
[INDU MALHOTRA AND SANJIV KHANNA, JJ.]
Ports – Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 – ss.52 and 47A –
Notification dated 4th November, 1993 published u/s.52 of the Act
fixing a schedule / scale of rates for storage of goods / cargo at the
Kandla Port – Act amended in 1997 whereby s.52 was omitted and
s.47A was inserted to constitute a Tariff Authority – Circular dated
31st August, 1998 issued by Traffic Manager of the Port, stipulated
levy of penalty for storage of goods beyond period of sixty days
treating the same as unauthorised occupation – Whether the 1998
circular was in conformity with the terms of the 1993 Notification
or had the effect of modifying or amending the same – Held: The
first portion of the Notification prescribing escalating rates for use
of open area and sheds did not vest any right to occupy such space
for unlimited period of time – Prescribing different slabs or rates
for storage of cargo for different periods by the 1993 Notification
was meant to fix rates for the rent payable and not to deny or curtail
the power of the Traffic Manager to authorise and permit use of
sheds and space for storage of cargo / containers – The 1993
Notification had empowered and left it to the Traffic Manager to
deal with the question of unauthorised occupation, including the
time limits or period during which the goods could be authorised to
be stored – Levy of penalty for unauthorised occupation of space
for period beyond sixty days of storage as fixed vide the impugned
1998 circular was in conformity and in consonance with the 1993
Notification and in particular Notes 1, 4 and 5 thereof, and was
hence not illegal or invalid.
 Ports – Kandla Port Regulations – Regns. 64 and 128 –
Power and authority of the Traffic Manager of the Port under the
Port Regulations – Notification dated 4th November, 1993 published
[2019] 18 S.C.R. 969
969
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
970
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 18 S.C.R.
u/s.52 of the Act fixing a schedule / scale of rates for storage of
goods / cargo at the Kandla Port – Act amended in 1997 whereby
s.52 was omitted and s.47A was inserted to constitute a Tariff
Authority – Circular dated 31st August, 1998 issued by Traffic
Manager of the Port, stipulated levy of penalty for storage of goods
beyond period of sixty days treating the same as unauthorised
occupation – Whether the 1998 circular was beyond the powers
available and entrusted to the Traffic Manager under the Port
Regulations – Held: The contention that the Traffic Manager was
not competent to fix time limit for storage, is unacceptable and
contrary to the Notes to the said Notification and the powers vested
and given under the Regulations to the Traffic Manager – The Traffic
Manager had authority and discretion for allotment of space for
storage on rent and to withdraw allotment of space depending on
the availability and to ensure that the port operations were not
hindered and obstructed due to congestion and shortage of space
– Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 – ss.52 and 47A.
Ports – Storage of goods / cargo at the Kandla Port – Circular
dated 31st August, 1998 issued by Traffic Manager of the Port,
stipulated levy of penalty for storage of goods beyond period of
sixty days treating the same as unauthorised occupation – Whether
the circular was unreasonable and violative of Art. 14 of the
Constitution – Held:  The circular though issued on 31st August,
1998 was made effective and applicable from 1st October, 1998 –
Therefore, the parties were given time to take steps to avoid the
usage of the storage facility from being declared as unauthorized –
The impugned circular (which specifically recorded that there was
congestion at the Port which had necessitated issuance of the
circular) brought about uniformity, clarity and transparency in the
use of storage facilities at the Kandla Port – The circular ensured
equal treatment without discretion as upper time limit of sixty days
was prescribed for storage of goods failing which penalty was
payable – Period of sixty days is sufficient and long and cannot be
termed as unreasonable and violating Art.14 of the Constitution –
Constitution of India, 1950 – Art. 14.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD:1.1. The Notification dated 4th November, 1993 had
specified rent/usage charges for open space, covered space,
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
971
containers, 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.