1 2495.04-wp bgp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2495 OF 2004 Unimarine Agencies Pvt. Ltd. ..Petitioner Vs. Union of India & Ors. ..Respondents Ms.Aarati Bhide for petitioner. Mr.P.S.Jetly for respondent No.1. Mr.U.J.Makhija i/b. Mulla & Mulla for respondent No.2. CORAM : D.K.DESHMUKH & N.D.DESHPANDE,JJ. DATE : DECEMBER 23, 2010 P.C. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the demand of ground rent made by respondent No.2 for the container which admittedly belongs to the petitioner. 2. The relevant facts are that, at Bombay Port Trust a Toyota Land Cruiser Jeep in the container of the petitioner was received. That cargo was seized by the Customs Authority. Ultimately that cargo was released on 26th May, 2004. The cargo and the container remained occupying the space of respondent No.2 for the period from 22nd November, 1998 till May,2004. Therefore, respondent No.2 demanded an amount of Rs. 1,49,988/- from the petitioner. The submission of the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner is that what was seized was the cargo 2 2495.04-wp contained in the container and not the container. They had made several applications to the Customs Authority who seized the cargo as also the Port Authority for de-stuffing the cargo and releasing the container. But neither the Customs Authority nor the Port Authority permitted de-stuffing of the cargo and release of the container. Ultimately, the cargo was released in the month of May,2004 at that time the container was also released. The learned Counsel, therefore, submits that the petitioner cannot be held liable for the demurrage or occupation charges for the container which is claimed by the Port Authority. 3. The learned Counsel relied on the statement made in the affidavit filed on behalf of the Port Authority that because they had seized the cargo, the container could not have been released by the Port Authority. The learned Counsel appearing for respondent No.2 submits that the Customs Authority had seized the cargo which was contained in the container and the container was sealed by the Customs Authority. The cargo was in the custody of the Customs Authority and the container was under their seal. Therefore, it was not within the power of the Port Authority to de-stuff the cargo. It is only the Customs Authority who could have permitted de- stuffing of the container. 4. The learned Counsel also relies on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of International Airports Authority of India and Ors. Vs. Grand Slam International and Ors. (1995) 3 SCC 151 to claim that, even if the cargo is wrongly detained by the Customs Authority, the Port Authority cannot be denied their right to claim demurrage because the cargo continues to occupy their space also holding that the Customs Authority cannot be made to pay the demurrage to the Port Authority. 3 2495.04-wp 5. We have perused the record in the light of the rival submissions made by the parties. In our opinion, as the cargo was contained in the container and the container containing cargo was sealed by the Customs Authority, it was not within the power of the Port Authority to de-stuff the cargo and release the container. That could have been done only by the Customs Authority. But the fact remains that the container continued to occupy the space of the Port Trust and therefore, in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of International Airports Authority of India and Ors. referred above, even assuming that the fault was on the part of the Customs Authority, right of the Port Authority to claim demurrage charges cannot be denied. In our opinion, no relief can be granted to the petitioner in this petition, the petition stands dismissed with no order as to costs. (N.D.DESHPANDE,J.) (D.K.DESHMUKH,J.)