The court ruled that the High Court erred in dismissing the writ petition without addressing the legal question of liability for wreck removal, emphasizing that systemic delays should not impede justice.

ORDER :

Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ.

Leave granted. Heard learned senior counsel/counsel for the parties.

BACKGROUND:

2. The appellant is aggrieved by the Impugned Order, by which Writ Petition No.2127/1996 filed by it before the High Court was disposed of. The High Court noted that the said writ petition principally sought the following reliefs:

‘(a) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of prohibition or a writ in the nature of prohibition or any other appropriate writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, prohibiting the Respondents from insisting upon the Petitioners to remove the wreck of SATYAM or take any steps in that behalf and/or to deposit any amounts as costs of such wreck removal;

(b) For a permanent injunction restraining the Respondents, their servants and agents from taking any steps against the Petitioners and preventing the Petitioners from availing of the services of the Mumbai Port Trust and its waters for the purpose of safely transitting their barges containing iron ore being moved from the mother vessel to Dharamtar jetty;’

3. The writ petition has been disposed of by the High Court in the following terms:

‘(i) We permit the Respondent No.1 Mumbai Port Trust to withdraw the amount deposited in this Court by the Petitioner alongwith accrued interest without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties;

(ii) Inasmuch there are disputed facts involved and since the Petition is now rendered infructuous, it could be open for the Petitioner to file a suit against the Respondents for refund/recovery of Rs.70,00,000/- alongwith accrued interest, if so advised. The remedies of the Respondent No.1 Mumbai Port Trust to recover further amounts, if any, are also kept open;

(iii) The Writ Petition and the Notice of Motion are disposed of in the aforesaid terms. There shall be no order as to costs.’

SUBMISSIONS:

4. Learned senior counsel for the appellant submits that the crux of the issue is as to whether the appellant is liable to pay the charges for removal of the wreck of a barge (‘Satyam’) belonging to respondent no.3 (M/s Shivam Engineers) which capsized while ferrying iron ore from the ship of the appellant to the port concerned. Learned counsel drew the attention of this Court to the Notice/Communication dated 19.04.1995 issued by the then Deputy Conservator of respondent no.1, which specifically states that power under Section 14(1) [‘14. Raising or removal of wreck impeding navigation within limits of port.—(1) If any vessel is wrecked, standard or sunk in any port in such a manner as to impede or likely to impede any navigation thereof, the conservator shall give notice to the owner of the vessel to raise, remove or destroy the vessel within such period as may be specified in the notice and to furnish such adequate security to the satisfaction of the conservator to ensure that the vessel shall be raised, removed or destroyed within the said period:

Provided that the conservator may extend such period to such further period as he may consider necessary having regard to the circumstances of such case and the extent of its impediment to navigation. xxx’] of the Indian Ports Act, 1908 [Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’.] was being exercised and the appellant (in its then avatar as ‘M/s Nippon Denro Ispat Ltd.’) was called upon ‘to deposit a sum Rs.70 lakhs [Under Section 14(3) of the Act, which reads as under: ‘(3) The expenses and further sum aforesaid shall be payable to the conservator out of the sale-proceeds of the property, and the balance shall be paid to the person entitled to the property recovered, or, if no such person appears and claims the balance, shall be held in deposit for payment, without interest, to any person thereafter establishing his right thereto: Provided that the person makes his claim within three years from the date of the sale.’] as adequate security to ensure that the said wreck has been raised or removed within the s