The Port Trust can demand ground rent for a maximum of 75 days, and the disposal of goods should follow the procedure under Sections 61 and 62 of the MPT Act.

1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner which is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act having its registered office at Mumbai. The petitioner, who is doing business in the field of shipping and steamer agents for vessel/containers by name Mearsk now called Mearsk Sealand operating also from the Port of Cochin, has approached this Court with this petition for a direction to destuff the cargo from the container lying in the Port Trust and to auction the cargo in dispute and to refund the amount illegally debited from the petitioner.

2. Petitioner contended that the first respondent is bound to discharge their obligations and duties under the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as "MPT Act") including the power to sell and dispose of the cargo under their custody. The procedure for obtaining delivery of the cargo from the Port premises was not properly followed. Respondent No. 4 is the owner of the goods or consignee under the Bill of Lading who did not clear the cargo properly. In the circumstance the petitioner has incurred heavy loss. The Port Trust debited Rs.2,96,861/- and Rs.6,82,700/- on 20.12.1999 and 30.5.2000 from the account of the petitioner. In the circumstance the petitioner approached this Court for a direction to the respondents 1 to 3 to auction the cargo in dispute and to realise the ground rent and other charges payable under the Major Port Trust Act and to pay the balance sale proceeds if any, to the petitioner and further to recover all pending charges, if any, from respondent No.4 who is the owner of goods.

3. The 1st and 2nd respondents did not file any counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent it is contended that the Circular No. 85/95 referred is not applicable in this case since Customs Department has not detained any goods. As soon as the Bill of Entry was filed, order for examination was given under first appraisement system. But the party did not produce the goods for examination. Subsequently, on the request of Importer, Bill of Entry was assessed and duty was collected under second appraisement system and returned to the importer to produce the goods for examination under second appraisement system which was done as per declaration and examination since it was not destuffed by Port Trust.

4. Heard. Now the question that arises for consideration is whether the petitioner is entitled to get the cargo cargo destuffed from the FCL container which is lying at Cochin Ports C.Y.(Rajeev Gandhi Container Terminal) of the respective shipping lines beyond a period of two months from the date of its landing?. According to Section 42 of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 the Board shall have power to undertake the services such as receiving, removing, shifting, transporting, storing or delivering goods brought within the Board's premises. As per Section 61, the Board may after the expiry of two months from the time when any goods have passed into its custody, or in the case of animals and perishable or hazardous goods after the expiry of such shorter period not being less than twenty-four hours after the landing of the animals or goods as the Board may think fit, sell them by public auction. The petitioner's case is that the container was detained in the Port Trust for several months and Rs. 2,96,861/- and Rs.6,82,700/- were debited from his account. Even after repeated demands the first and second respondents have not taken any decision.

5. To comprehend the above aspect the rights and liabilities of the Board, owner of the goods, consignee and agents, it is necessary to refer the relevant provisions prescribing the role of each parties, their lien and priority of the sale proceeds etc. Section 59 of the MPT Act deals with the lien of the Board for rates and Section 60 is that of the Ship owner for freight and other charges respectively. Sub-section (2) of Section 59 says that the lien o