The court emphasized that tariff revisions under contractual agreements should be mutually agreed upon and prohibited unilateral changes by authorities without consent.

JUDGMENT :

RAJESH BINDAL, J.

Table of Contents

1. Leave granted.

2. This order will dispose of two appeals.

3. The issue pertains to fixation of tariff by the Paradip Port Authority.¹ [Earlier Paradip Port Trust] There were two Writ Petitions² [W.P. (C) No. 732 of 2012 and W.P. (C) No. 11 of 2010] decided by the High Court by a common order.³ [Dated 11.01.2023] Both were filed by the appellant herein. Though the period involved is different, the High Court had decided both the writ petitions by a common order. For this reason, both the appeals are being taken up and decided together.

C.A. NO............OF 2025 [ARISING OUT OF S.L.P. (C) NO. 9751 OF 2023

FACTUAL ASPECTS

4. The present appeal has been filed by the Appellant (formerly Paradip Port Trust) challenging the common order of the High Court dated 11.01.2023 disposing of W.P. (C) No. 11 of 2010.

5. The aforesaid petition was filed against order dated 19.10.2009 passed by the Appellate Authority in appeal⁴ [Appeal No. 5/LS/2003] which upheld the arbitral award⁵ [Case No. MA/NCJ/12/2001dated 27.12.2002] dated 27.12.2002. The Appellant was ordered to refund the additional amount charged till 31.03.1999 along with interest, holding the same to be unilaterally enhanced. As far as refund from 01.04.1999 and interest is concerned, both the parties were directed to file petition before Tariff Authority for Major Ports (hereinafter referred to as the TAMP). The award and appellate order were subject matter of challenge in the Writ Petition.

6. The High Court dismissed the petition, upholding the impugned award and the appellate order.

7. The appellant is a major port authority, governed by the provisions of the 1963 Act⁶ [ MAJOR PORT TRUSTS ACT , 1963] which is now renamed as Paradip Port Authority (PPA) under the 2021 Act.⁷ [ Major Port Authorities Act , 2021] The 1963 Act was replaced by the 2021 Act.

8. The respondent herein was a public sector unit when it entered into a bilateral agreement with the appellant/Authority on 03.08.1985. The idea thereof, as is evident from the agreement, was that the appellant/Authority agreed for construction of berth at Paradip Port, to be known as Fertilizer Berth, to provide berthing facilities exclusively to the respondent. The tariff to be paid by the respondent was prescribed in the Agreement. The rates could be suitably enhanced at such intervals as would be mutually agreed upon by the parties from time to time. It was the responsibility of the respondent to make such construction and install such equipments exclusively at their cost to ensure smooth handling of its cargo. It was responsible for its maintenance as well. Clause 19 of the Agreement provided that the respondent shall be subjected to application of all relevant laws, rules and regulations of the Paradip Port Trust, as may be applicable from time to time.

9. In exercise of power conferred under Sections 48 to 52 of the 1963 Act, Traffic Department of Paradip Port Trust issued Notification⁸ [Notification No. 1344] dated 05.10.1993