1998 Supreme(AP) 214

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : N.SANJEEVA REDDY, N.Y.HANUMANTHAPPA
Jagannatha Reddy - Appellant
Versus
Chairman Visakhapatnam Port Trust, Vishkhapatnam - Respondent
Decided On : 03-25-98

Headnote:

Major Port Trust Act, 1963 – Appointment – 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 news papers. – 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 Trust Act, 1963, hereinafter referred to the 1963 Act . – 2nd respondent Trust is constituted under the 1963 Act. – Trust has shown undue favour to the 3rd respondent in allotting T-Shed and berth to it by not following the norms. –3rd respondent has a solvent extraction plant at Lathur, Maharashtra State for processing Soyabean meal. – 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. – 4th respondent is a Multi National Company having its subsidiary at Mumbai through whom the activities of the 3rd respondent are promoted. – 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. – 6th respondent is an Investigation Agency. – 7th respondent is made a party since the petitioner wants protection. – According to the petitioner, the Port Trusts arc required to function under the Rules and Regulations under the 1963 Act which include allotment of T-Sheds and berths. – 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 facilitate smooth sanction of the requests of the 3rd respondent. – Allotting to T-Sheds to the 3rd respondent alone was the subject-matter before the Parliament. – By allotting T-Shed by Visakhapatnam Port Trust to the 3rd respondent, the Port is losing crores of rupees every year, but the Respondents 1 and 2 arc not taking the responsibility of looking into the matter. – Thus the public interest is in jeopardy. – Managing Director of the 3rd respondent who was appointed Trustee of the 2nd respondent and whose appointment itself is bad and illegal got the berths allotted. – His appointment was opposed by one Mr. V. V. Rama Rao representing the Labour interest. – Held, It can be held without any hesitation that the attempt of the petitioner is not to espouse the public cause but to serve his self-interest namely to harass the trustees of the 2nd respondent on the one hand and the 3rd respondent on the other, the reason being number of disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner by the 2nd respondent port for his mis-conduct. – In our view, the petitioner has no locus standi to maintain the writ petitions and seek for cancellation of allotment of T. Shed to the 3rd respondent by the 2nd respondent as there is no favouritism or arbitrariness in the allotment – 2nd and 3rd respondents are right in their contentions that the taken up matter and the writ petition presented and filed by the petitioner are not maintainable as the petitioner is neither aggrieved by the action of the 2nd respondent in allotment of T. Shed to the 3rd respondent nor established any locus standi to maintain the writ petitions. Mere allegations in the absence of proof do not require to be considered. – Allegations of the petitioner are not based on proper information but made with a view to harass the respondents to settle his private differences with them – It is not a fit case where a direction can 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 – Petition Dismissed