Back
1998 Supreme(AP) 218
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : N.Y.HANUMANTHAPPA, NEELAM SANJIVA REDDY
JAGANNATHA REDDY - Appellant
Versus
Union of India rep.by its Secretary, Ministry of Surface Transport, New Delhi - Respondent
Decided On : 03-25-98
Headnote:
Major port Trusts Act, 1963 – Section 3 – Issue from appointment of the Managing Director – Letter was addressed to this Court by one Ch. Jagannadha Reddy making certain allegations against the Union of India, Management of Visakhapatnam port Trust and Tinna Oils and Chemicals Ltd. , New Delhi. – Same was taken up as W. P. as a public interest litigation. – Notices were ordered to the respondents. – Held, Since information furnished by the petitioner is quite contrary and it is made with a view to settle his private differences with the respondents, it is not a fit case where a direction be given to the Central Government to direct the C. B. I. to investigate into the transaction pertaining to the allotment of T-shed to the 3rd respondent. – As far as last prayer of the petitioner is concerned namely was there any nexus between the respondents 2 to 5, the facts themselves disclose that there was no nexus. – Each one is different from another. – Any work entrusted to the 3rd respondent is only pursuant to the approval of the Central Government which approved the same keeping in mind the effect of some of the provisions of the 1963 Act. – 4th respondent is an outsider. – In its counter, it clearly stated it is no way interested in the allotment of T-shed to the 3rd respondent. – On the other hand, the 4th respondent is a multi-national company. – Having satisfied with the work of the 3rd respondent it decided to transact with the 3rd respondent in the matter of shipping of cargo. – Fourth point is also answered against the petitioner. – In our view, both the writ petitions are devoid of merits and as such they are liable to be dismissed. –Writ Petitions Dismissed
( 1 ) A letter was addressed to this Court by one Ch. Jagannadha Reddy making certain allegations against the Union of India, Management of Visakhapatnam port Trust and Tinna Oils and Chemicals Ltd. , New Delhi. The same was taken up as W. P. No. 14043/97 as a public interest litigation. Notices were ordered to the respondents.
( 2 ) SUBSEQUENTLY the said Jagannadha Reddy filed W. P. No. l 8110/97 against the above three respondents and four others namely M/s. Toepfer international Asia Pvt. , Ltd. , (4th respondent), M/s. Alfared C Toepfer (India) pvt. , Ltd. (5th respondent), the Central Bureau of Investigation (6th respondent) and the Station House Officer, Harbour Police Station, Port Area, visakhapatnam (7th respondent ). The relief sought in this writ petition is to direct the 6th respondent to probe into (1) the entire issue starting from appointment of the Managing Director of Tinna Oils (3rd respondent) as the members of the Board of Trustees, (2) declare the action of the Visakhapatnam port Trust (2nd respondent) in allotting the berth to the 3rd respondent, namely, Tinna Oils as void, illegal and arbitrare and (3) to enquiry whether there is any nexus between respondents 3, 4 and 5.
( 3 ) SINCE some of the facts mentioned in the letter which was taken up as w. P. No. 14043/97 and the averments made in W. P. No. 18110/97 and the relief sought are almost identical, both the writ petitions are clubbed, heard together and disposed of by this common order.
( 4 ) THE case of the petitioner is that he is an employee and former member of the Welfare Board of Visakhapatnam Port Trust. He is also the Vice-President of Port and Dock Workers Union of Visakhapatnam Port Trust. He is a public spirited person and as such he filed these writ petitions as a public interest litigation as crores of rupees belonging to the 2nd respondent Trust were swindled by fraudulent means by respondents 2 to 5 which are published in several newspapers. Respondents 2 to 5 being influential and wealthy, managed to avoid investigation and prosecution. According to him, the department of Surface Transport, Government of India is administering the visakhapatnam Port Trust (2nd respondent) under the provisions of Major port Trusts Act, 1963, hereinafter referred to the 1963 Act . The 2nd respondent trust is constituted under the 1963 Act. The Trust has shown undue favour of the 3rd respondent in allotting T-Shed and berth to it by not following the norms. The 3rd respondent has a solvent extraction plant at Lathur, Maharastra state for processing Soyabean meal. The 3rd respondent influenced the 2nd respondent and obtained sanction for setting up a mechanical system for exporting oil cake and agricultural products through its Managing Director mr. Bhupendra Kumar. The 4th respondent is a multi national company having its subsidiary at Mumbai through whom the activities of the 3rd respondent are promoted. The 5th respondent is again a cent percent subsidiary of 4th respondent whose functions are to organise exports from various exporters to promote the 3rd respondent. The 6th respondent is an Investigation Agency. The 7th respondent is made a party since the petitioner wants protection. According to the petitioner, the Port Trusts are required to function under the Rules and Regulations under the 1963 Act which include allotment of t-Sheds and berths. The 3rd respondent is a company carrying on its operations at Kakinada Port. It approached the then Minister for Surface transport and influenced respondents 1 and 2 to allot the berth and T-Sheds ignoring the rules and regulations. According to him any allotment of T-Shed or berth is by way of public global tender system. In case of Tinna Oils (3rd respondent), it got the berth allotted in its favour without calling for any tenders and also got influenced the Union of India to appoint the persons of 3rd respondent as Trustees of the 2nd respondent Port. This was done with a view to f
