LPA/1585/2007 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 1585 of 2007 In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 12954 of 2000 & CIVIL APPLICATION No. 10839 of 2007 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE R.M. DOSHIT & HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SHARAD D. DAVE ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to civil judge ? ========================================================= MAHESHWARY HANDLING AGENCY PVT.LTD. & 1 - Appellant(s) Versus BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE KANDLA PORT TRUST & 1 - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR DC DAVE for Appellants MR ALPESH RAJPURIYA for Respondents ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE R.M.DOSHIT And HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SHARAD D.DAVE 15th July, 2008 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE R.M. DOSHIT) This Appeal preferred under clause 15 of the Letters Patent arises from the judgment and order LPA/1585/2007 2/4 JUDGMENT dated 14th June, 2007 passed by the learned Single Judge in above Special Civil Application No. 12954 of 2000. The appellant before this Court [hereinafter referred to as, “the Agency”] is the writ petitioner - a private limited company – an agency dealing in cargo handling at Kandla Port, a major port within the meaning of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 [hereinafter referred to as, “the Act”]. The agency has challenged the validity of the Circular dated 31st August, 1998 issued by the Traffic Manager, Kandla Port Trust in respect of storing cargo within the precincts of the Kandla Port Trust. The challenge was three fold – first, since 9th January, 1997 by the Port Laws [Amendment] Act, 1997 (Act 15 of 1997), the Port Trust is divested of its authority to prescribe rates and the attached conditions. The impugned circular dated 31st August, 1998 was thus issued without the authority of law and that too not by the Port Trust but by the Traffic Manager. Second, the impugned circular dated 31st August, 1998 curtails the right of the port users to store their goods within the precincts of the port trust for a period longer than two months, without LPA/1585/2007 3/4 JUDGMENT the authority of law. Third, since 9th January, 1997, it is the Tariff Authority which alone is vested with the right to prescribe the rates and conditions. The agency has also prayed for refund of excess amount paid by it from the Port Trust. The learned Single Judge has considered the scope of the impugned circular dated 31st August, 1998; the powers of the Traffic Manager conferred by the regulations, and the fact that the tariff authority, constituted under Section 47A of the Act, did not prescribe any rates until 29th January, 2001 – the day on which the impugned circular stood withdrawn. The learned Single Judge has observed that under the regulations, it is the Traffic Manager who is vested with the power to regulate the tariff at the port, loading and unloading, storage, etc. Besides, the impugned regulation did not prescribe any rates but introduced a uniform policy of not allowing storage space within the precincts of the port trust beyond the period of two months. Even in absence of the impugned circular, the Agency or any other port user had no right to occupy space beyond a certain specified period. In other words, the Agency LPA/1585/2007 4/4 JUDGMENT did not have vested right to use the port for a period longer than sixty days. According to the learned Single Judge, the impugned Circular was issued by the Traffic Manager in exercise of the powers conferred upon him. The said circular did not contravene Section 47A in any manner, nor did the said circular abridged any right hitherto vested in the Agency or any other port user. We are in agreement with the learned Single Judge. No case for interference is made out. The Appeal is dismissed. Civil Application stands disposed of. {Miss R.M Doshit, J.} {Sharad D. Dave, J.} Prakash*