-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1724 OF 2001 Omprakash Daulatram Nogaja ) Proprietor of M/s. OPM International having his office ) at 9B, Cawasji Patel Street, Fort, Mumbai-400 037 )..Petitioner versus The Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay, constituted ) under Section 5 of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963, having ) their office at “VijayDeep”, Shoorji Vllabhdas Marg, ) Bombay-400 038 ).Respondents Ms. Kalpana Trivedi, instructed by M/s. Bharat & Company, for the petitioner. Mr. U.J. Makhija, instructed by M/s. Mulla & Mulla & Cragie Blunt and Caroe, for the respondents. CORAM: P.B. MAJMUDAR & R.M. SAVANT, JJ. DATE: 25 th June, 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT: (Per R.M. Savant, J.) This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks a writ of certiorari against the respondents for quashing and setting aside the 23 demand notices issued by the respondents. The petitioner herein imports goods by consignments which are shipped from abroad. The dispute pertains to the consignments imported by the petitioner during the period 1997-1998. Admittedly, the petitioner has cleared the said consignments and paid the charges of the respondents. -2- 2. The petitioner was sent 23 demand notices by the respondents by forwarding letter dated 4th May, 2001. By the said 23 demand notices, small amounts ranging from Rs. 2,000/- to Rs. 30,000/-, were demanded from the petitioner on the ground that the last free date was wrongly calculated by the respondents without taking into consideration the Saturdays which were working Saturdays in so far as Customs Department is concerned. It would be relevant to state here that an importer is obliged to clear the goods within three days of the general landing date which is declared by the respondents. If a non- working Saturday intervenes, then the importer is obliged to clear the goods on the next working day. 3. It is the case of the petitioner herein that he has cleared the goods within three days of the general landing date declared by the respondents. It is further the case of the petitioner that the petitioner cannot be saddled with further charges on account of the mis-calculation of the last free date made by the respondents. It is further the case of the petitioner that demand notices have been sent for a period for which the respondents would not be in a position to recover the amounts, even by filing a suit. 4. On behalf of the respondents Shri U.J. Makhija, learned counsel, drew our attention to Section 56 of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963(hereinafter referred ti as “the Act”). The said Section is reproduced hereunder. -3- “56. Notice of payment of charges short-levied or erroneously refunded. (1) When any Board is satisfied that any charge leviable under this Chapter has been short-levied or erroneously refunded, it may issue a notice to the person who is liable to pay such charge or to whom the refund has erroneously been made, requiring him to show cause why he should not pay the amount specified in the notice: Provided that no such notice shall be issued after the expiry of two years,- (a) when the charge is short-levied, from the date of the payment of the charge; (b) where a charge has been erroneously refunded, from the date of the refund. (2) The Board may, after considering the representation, if any, made by the person to whom notice is issued under sub- section (1), determine the amount due from such person and thereupon such person shall pay the amount so determined. “ 5. A reading of the demand notices discloses that the same are in respect of the period which is beyond two years save and except the last demand notice dated 15th February, 2001. Section 56 postulates that no demand notice can be issued after a period of two years. In our view, therefore, on the touchstone of Section 56 of the said Act, the demand notices issued by the respondents are unsustainable and would, therefore, have to be quashed and set aside. In view of Section 56 of the Act, it is not necessary for us to dilate on the issues raised by the petitioner, which have been mentioned hereinabove. In so -4- far as demand notice dated 15th February, 2001 is concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioner fairly states that the petitioner would pay the amount mentioned therein within a period of four weeks from today. Since we have not gone into the issues raised in the petition and allowed the petition in so far as 22 demand notices are concerned on the touchstone of Section 56 of the Act, we have not determined the liability of the petitioner in so far as the 23rd notice dated 15th February, 2001 is concerned and have only recorded the statement made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. Rule is accordingly made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a) save and except in respect of the last demand notice dated 15th February, 2001. The parties are directed to bear their own costs. P. B. MAJMUDAR, J. R.M. SAVANT, J.