LexYAZDANI INTERNATIONAL P. LTD. versus AUROGLOBAL COMTRADE P. LTD. & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2013) 17 S.C.R. 801 YAZDANI INTERNATIONAL P. LTD. v. AUROGLOBAL COMTRADE P. LTD. & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 11229 of 2013) DECEMBER 17, 2013. [H. L. GOKHALE AND J. CHELAME;SWAR, JJ.] MAJOR PORT TRUSTS ACT, 1963: A B s. 49 rlw s. 111 - Conditions for use of land belonging to c Board - Held: Board is bound by policy directions given by Government of India from time to time u/s 111 - Land Policy guidelines, 2004 forbid sale or lease of land and enable the Board only to grant or renew a licence - The 2010 policy guidelines restrict the authority of the Board to renew the D licences for only two terms - The tenure of any licence is stipulated to be for a maximum period of 11 months - Thus, the policy only enables the Board to renew licences granted but does not create any vested right in favour of licensor - Therefore, allotment of plots in dispute is only by way of a E licence, as defined u/s 52 of Easements Act, 1882 - Land Policy for Major Ports, 2004- Land Policy for Major Porl:s, 2010 - Easements Act, 1882~s. 52. s. 49(3) - Discretion of Board to permit .use of its properties - Held: Sub-s. (3) of s. 49 authorises the Board to F lease its properties either by auction or by inviting tenders - The expression 'the Board may' occurring in the sub-section indicates that lease is the highest of rights that may be created on the properties - It does not eliminate the discretion of Board to permit use of its properties by any arrangement G which transfers a lesser or no interest (such as a licence) in the property - Leave and licence. Easements Act, 1882: 801 H 802 SUPREME COURT REPORTS . [2013] 17 S.C.R. A ss.52 and 60 - Licence - Held: A licence is revocable at the will of grantor which is the essence of a licence - The Act categorically declares that a licence can be revoked by grantor except in the contingencies specified u/s 60(a) and (b) - In the instant case, none of the appellants have any s indefeasible right of renewal either under Easements Act or under Land Policy guidelines - Appellants failed to establish that decision of Board to terminate their licences is otherwise violative of any of substantive right - Decision of the Board needs no interference. c Renewal of licence in respect of land belonging to Board - Held: A public body like the respondent Board cannot arbitrarily decline to renew a licence - If it decides not to renew any licence either with respect to a class of licences or with reference to a specific area of the land, normally such a D decision cannot be said to be either irrational or arbitrary unless there are other compelling reasons to indicate that the decision has no rational purpose to be achieved - In the instant case, entire parcel of land which was allotted to the various licensees of manually operated plots is proposed to E be utilised by the Board for creating modern operational facilities in connection with activities of the Port and termination of licences of mechanically operated plots would save the Board from huge financial loss - Such a decision cannot be said to be arbitrary or irrational exercise of authority F of a public body, having regard to the object sought to be achieved by Board - Therefore, proposed course of action by Board neither infringes any legal right of appellants nor does it amount to an arbitrary exercise of auth.ority by Board - Constitution of India, 1950 - Arts. 12 and 14 - Approbate G and reprobate. H Constitution of India, 1950: Art. 136 - Jurisdiction under - Preliminary objection as regards new grounds raised- Held: Jurisdiction under Art. 136 YAZDANI INTERNATIONAL P. LTD. v. AUROGLOBAL 803 COMTRADE P. LTD. is discretionary only to be exercised in order to ensure that A injustice is not perpetuated - One of the important attributes of discretionary jurisdiction is that such jurisdiction is not exercised where it is likely to be a futile exercise - Therefore, accepting preliminary objection and refusing to consider the ground newly raised by the Board would only "drive parties to B fresh litigation" rendeting present adjudication a futile exercise of the jurisdiction of the Court - Issue, can be decided by Supreme Court to prevent a possible damage to the programme proposed to be undertaken by Board and its "speedy accomplishment"- Subsequent events. c Arts. 32, 136 and 226 - Notices of termination oflicences based on a decision of High Court in a case in which a
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.