THE VISAKHAPATNAM PORT TRUST versus M/S. RAM BAHADUR THAKUR PVT. LTD.

Citation: [1997] 1 S.C.R. 1080 · Decided: 10-02-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.S. ANAND · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
THE VISAKHAPATNAM PORT TRUST 
v. 
M/S. RAM BAHADUR THAKUR PVT. LTD. 
FEBRUARY 10, 1997 
[DR. A.S. ANAND AND S.B. MAJMUDAR, JJ.] 
Major Port Tmsts Ac4 1963 : Sections 52 to 54. 
Scale of rates-For trans-shipment and shipping of goods-Fixing 
C of--By Board of Tmstees-Handling charges for manganese ore at Rs. 35 per 
MT approved by Central Government under S. 53--Rate included trampor-
tation of stocked ore from the plots within the Port to ships by narrow gauge 
railway line at the cost of the Board-On representation by the shippers, 
remission of Rs. 5 per MT granted by Board-Subsequently, Board by its 
resolution introduced revised system under which stocked ore was to be 
D transported to the wharf by employing shippers' own dumpers and loaders 
and loadingwith their sling~sting na"ow gauge railway jystem dispensed 
with-Rs 30 per MT was fixed as consolidated handling charges under the 
new system-Held : Scale of rates depended upon conditions under which 
services were rendered by the Board to shippers-New system replaced old 
E system and, there/ ore, for enforcement of the same prior sanction by Central 
Government under S. 52 was sine qua non-It could not be treated as a 
scheme of remission under S. 53. 
Sections 53 and 54-Scale of rates-For services rendered by Board to 
shippers-Fixed by Board and sanctioned by Central Government-Held : 
) 
F Board empowered to grant exemption/remission under S. SJ-Central 
, 
Government empowered to modify or cancel the sanctioned rate--Board and 
Central Government to exercise their respective powers independent of each 
other. 
-
Sections 52 and 54-Scale of rates for trans-shipment of goods-Exist-
G ing rates approved by Central Government under S. 52 and remitted by 
Board-Subsequently, revised by Board by introducing an entirely new sys-
tem-However, Central Government gave sanction to new system a few years 
late,._-lfeld : during the intemgnum i.e., from the date of introduction of the 
new system Jill the date of its sanction, the pre-existing rate would con-
tinu~Subject to resolving of objections raised-Although such rates were 
H disputed, the High Court emd in holding that there was no effective scale of rates. 
1080 
VISAKHAPATANAMPORTlRUSfv.RAMBAHADURTIIAKURPVf.LTD. 
1081 
~ 
Sections 52 and 54-Scale of rates-For servi.ces rendered by Board for A 
trans-shipment .of goods-Modification or cancellation of existing scale of 
rates--Concemed parties raised objections that existing scale of rates were 
unreasonable, excessive or lacking in quid pro quo-Held: Such parties could 
file representations and Central Government could consider their repre-
sentations--ln appropriate cases, Central Government could give hearing to 
B 
affected parties before taking decision regarding modification or cancel/a-
don-Objections and suggestions of the Board too had to be considered under 
-
S. 54 proviso-Hence, when aggrieved parties filed writ petition before High 
-.,, 
Court raising such objections, the High Court was justified in directing Central 
Government to give hearing to the parties' objections. 
Administrative Law : 
c 
Natural justice-Audi alteram partem-flearing-Held : Not required 
to be given to affected parties by a legislative action or action of a delegated 
legislative authority imposing any tax, fee or charges-However if statute 
obliged the Government to consider modification or cancellation of existing D 
scale of rates iii public interest court could direct Government to their 
representation-Once such representations were moved, Government must 
consider them and in appropriate case give personal hearing to affected 
.. 
parties. 
·-
Constitution of India 1950 : Article 226. 
E 
Writ petition-Maintainability of-Alternative remedy-Held : Where 
highly disputed question off act arose for decision, civil suit instead of writ 
-l 
petition would be the appropriate action : 
I " 
The respondents were dealers in manganese ore. They eiported F 
manganese ore through the Minerals and Metals Trading Corporation of 
India. For exporting the said ore they required the senices of the 
appellant's Port through which their manganese ore was loaded in the ships 
' 
for export. The appellant- Port Trust for that purpose offered various 
,., 
services and facilities to such shippers. The appellant-Port Trust main· G 
tained different yards in its premises. One such yard was divided into 
several plots, which were leased out by the Port Trust authorities to 
'y 
diff

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