IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 1879 OF 2007 PETITION NO. 1879 OF 2007 PETITION NO. 1879 OF 2007 Speedy Multimodes Ltd.& Anr. ..Petitioners V/s. Tariff Authority for Major Ports ..Respondents ...... Mr. E.P. Bharucha, Sr.Adv. with Dhumi Patel i/by Federal & Rashmikant for the Petitioners. Mr.S.Venkiteswaran, Sr.Adv. i/by V. Subramaniam for the Respondents. ...... CORAM CORAM CORAM : SHRI J.N.PATEL & : SHRI J.N.PATEL & : SHRI J.N.PATEL & SHRI SHRI SHRI K.K.TATED, JJ. K.K.TATED, JJ. K.K.TATED, JJ. DATE DATE DATE : 11ST AUGUST, 2008. : 11ST AUGUST, 2008. : 11ST AUGUST, 2008. P.C.: . Heard learned counsel for the parties. The Petitioners have approached this Court being aggrieved by order dated 28th June, 2007, which led to the Respondents to fix the Scale of Rates for Container Freight Station (CFS) operators, reduction of 15% in the existing scale of rates, which according to them is not justifiable as it is based on uneconomical, unreasonable and erroneous principle. 2. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioners that CFS tariff should be treated alike both in privileges conferred and liability imposed. The basic criteria in placing the tariff has to be based on : 2 : various factors, which have not been taken into consideration while fixing the tariff. 3. It was submitted that the authorities have failed to take cognizance of the increasing inputs of the Petitioner like settlement with Labour Union and that if the Respondent is directed to reconsider their decision afresh after giving an opportunity of being heard to the Petitioners, the Petitioners can very well approach the Respondents in the matter. 4. The learned counsel for the Respondents on the other hand, has justified the tariff on the ground that they have taken proper view in the matter and have revised tariff by reducing the same by flat rate of 15% in fixing the revised tariff. 5. In our view, it will be appropriate on the part of the Petitioners to approach Respondent No.1 which is a Statutory Authority in the matter for fixing the tariff in accordance with rules (BY JNPT). 6. Therefore, we direct the Petitioners to move the Respondents in the matter and on such application being made, the Respondent would take into consideration the : 3 : material placed on record by the Petitioners and if required allow them to tender documentary evidence in support of their contention and review tariff rates fixed by them in accordance with rules. 7. The Petitioners state that they would apply to the Respondent No.1 within a period of two weeks. On such application being made, the concerned authority will dispose off the same within a period of eight weeks. 8. In the meantime, the interim order passed by the Court on 22nd August, 2007 by the learned single Judge of this Court shall continue for a period of four weeks after the Respondent No.1 takes a decision in the matter and the same is communicated to the Petitioners. 9. Needless to say that as this Court has directed the Petitioners to approach Respondent No.1 in the matter, all issues and contentions raised in this Petition are kept open, as this Court has not adjudicated the matter on merits. 10. The Petition stands disposed off accordingly. : 4 : (J.N. (J.N. (J.N. Patel, J.) Patel, J.) Patel, J.) (K.K. (K.K. (K.K. Tated, J.) Tated, J.) Tated, J.)