IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the obligation of the Port Trust to act within a reasonable time and the conditions under which a shipping line can issue an abandonment letter, clarifying the liability for container storage charges.

JUDGMENT :

SUNITA AGARWAL, J.

1. This Letters Patent Appeal has arisen out of the judgment and order dated 02.09.2006 passed by the learned Single Judge in dismissing the writ petition on the premise of an order passed by this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.104 of 2000 wherein it was opined that the dispute with regard to payment of container storage charge/ground rent would require recording of evidence and cannot be summarily adjudicated in exercise of writ jurisdiction of this Court. The petitioner therein had been relegated to approach the Civil Court.

2. The dispute in the writ petition was with regard to action of the respondent authority namely Kandla Port Trust in levying container storage charges vide bills bearing Nos.244362 and 244357 both dated 06.06.2006 and 26.06.2006; respectively, and the demand of ground rent by respondent No.2 namely Central Warehousing Corporation, Container Freight Station, Kandla vide letter dated 3/4.05.2006. A further prayer is to direct the respondents to release the containers of the petitioner. The petitioner, as per the statement made in the writ petition is a private limited company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and is an agent of International Shipping Line M/s.Vasco Maritime Pte. Ltd., Singapore. It is engaged in the business of international ocean trade and is merely the carrier of the consignments which were transported in their containers to the specified destination. Upon execution of the contract of carriage, the petitioner is entitled to the return of the empty containers which belong to them.

3. It was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the transaction lies between the consignees and the respondent port and in the event of any dispute arising with regard to the consignments, which may lead to the consignee not taking the delivery and possession of their consignments, the respondents have a right to pursue the matter with the consignees only. They cannot detain the containers belonging to the carrier of the consignments. It was argued that despite repeated requests made by the petitioner, the respondents had not released the containers and instead levied the bills levying container storage charges on the premise that the petitioner did not remove the containers and as such, they are liable for the ground rent.

4. The undisputed facts of this case as brought before us are that two containers shipped through vessel M.V. Orient Patriot arrived on 30.07.2004 and 19.05.2005 at the Kandla port. The consignee/importer did not clear the cargo which remained lying in the port area for more than sixty days and hence, the petitioner wrote a letter dated 30.09.2004 to the Traffic Manager, Kandla Port Trust that as per the provisions of TAMP order TAM/ 88/99, the petitioner was authorized to issue a letter of abandonment, if the consignee was not issuing the abandonment letter. It was, thus, communicated that the petitioner was authorized to ask the competent authority of Kandla Port Trust to proceed with the auction procedures under the provisions of Section 62 of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 (‘the MPT Act’ in short). It was also requested that the date and place where the containers have to be moved to enable the petitioner to arrange the transportation and get the containers destuffed be intimated. When no response was received, another letter dated 20.07.2005 was sent to the Manager, Central Warehousing Corporation, Container Freight Station, Kandla with the same request. The contention is that both the communications were not responded by the officers and the respondent did not destuff the cargo and also did not release the containers.

5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that it was the obligation of the respondent to release the containers after destuffing the same if the goods were not cleared within a period of two months as per the provisions of Section 61 read with Section 62 of the MPT Act, 1963. No grou