IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.
M/s. Ras Turbo Pvt. Ltd., Represented by its General Manager - Mahendra Chowdhary, Chennai – Appellant
Versus
The Chairman, Chennai Port Trust, Chennai & Another – Respondent
W.P. Nos. 27566, 27642, 27648, 27572, 27653, 27656, 27657 of 2019 & 7584 & 8051 of
2020 & Connected Miscellaneous Petitions
Decided On : 07-04-2021
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Land Allotment - Occupants of Port property - Petitioners are Ship repairers who were allotted various open spaces of different dimensions in Chennai Port Trust area by respondents for purpose of assisting the ships for their repairing needs in Chennai Port. All the petitioners are aggrieved by the impugned letter issued to each one of them by the respondents informing them that allotment will not be extended for any further period beyond - They have to remove the workshop structures erected in the allotted area - Vacate and surrender the unpaved land in same original condition on or before and on failure to do so, they will be treated as unauthorized occupants and penalty charges will be levied at three times normal fee for first 3 months, five times up to 7 months and thereafter ten times from 8th month onwards
Finding of the court: Court view that principles of natural justice has been violated by second respondent while passing the impugned order calling upon the respective petitioner to pay a huge penalty - Second respondent has also not considered the representations of the respective petitioners that they are not liable to pay penalty in view of covid-19 pandemic lockdown in terms of Government orders passed from time to time - Since second respondent has passed a non-speaking order without considering the contentions of respective petitioners on merits and in accordance with law, impugned order will have to be necessarily quashed and the matter remanded back to second respondent for fresh consideration - Petitioners should not have any arrears of monthly charges (excluding the penalty) as on date of their fresh representation and in case there are arrears, the respondents shall summarily reject their representation
Result: Writ petitions are disposed of.
JUDGMENT :-
(Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the impugned proceedings dated 05.08.2019 in Letter No.C3/174/2013/T on the file of the second respondent and to quash the said impugned order.)
1. The petitioners are Ship repairers who were allotted various open spaces of different dimensions in the Chennai Port Trust area by the respondents for the purpose of assisting the ships for their repairing needs in the Chennai Port. All the petitioners are aggrieved by the impugned letter dated 05.08.2019 issued to each one of them by the respondents informing them that
(a) The allotment will not be extended for any further period beyond 30.09.2019
(b) They have to remove the workshop structures erected in the allotted area.
(c) Vacate and surrender the unpaved land in the same original condition on or before 30.09.2019 and on failure to do so, they will be treated as unauthorized occupants and penalty charges will be levied at three times the normal fee for first 3 months, five times upto 7 months and thereafter ten times from 8th month onwards.
2. All the petitioners have challenged the impugned letters dated 05.08.2019 by stating the following reasons:
(a) The land allotment in the Port area to each of the petitioners was earlier regulated by the respective allotment letters issued by the Chennai Port. Thereafter, the terms and conditions of the allotment was brought under a statutory regime namely, the Tariff Authority of Major Ports (TAMP) which fixes the scale of rates for the petitioners and other occupants of Port property. According to them, now the allotments are regulated by the Land Policy Guidelines issued by the Ministry of Ports, Government of India, 2014. Under the said guidelines, according to the petitioners, it was made mandatory that Port areas are to be leased out for major operations and for others it can only be by way of short-term license and the same has to be done through a transparent public auction. According to the petitioners, while laying the said Policy, the rights of existing allottees was protected by specifying the first right of refusal on the basis of auction and the highest bid and further on being unsuccessful, the superstructures to be compensated as valued by an Independent Valuer agreed to by all the parties, and the Port Authorities have to formulate their own guidelines by a board decision on the basis of such resolution. According to the petitioners, the Land Policy Guidelines of Major Ports, 2014 is the present statutory regime and without adhering to the same, the second respondent arbitrarily and in violation of principles of natural justice has issued the impugned communication dated 05.08.2019.
3. W.P.No.27572 of 2019 has been filed by M/s.Chidambaram Shipcare Pvt. Ltd., W.P.No.27657 of 2019 has been filed by M/s.Choudary Technical Ship Services Pvt. Ltd., W.P.No.27648 of 2019 has been filed by M/s.Hexxon Maritime Services, W.P.No.27642 of 2019 has been filed by M/s.Royal Tech Marine Engineers, W.P.No.27653 of 2019 has been filed by M/s.Shri Sangeethaa Logistics, W.P.No.27656 of 2019 has been filed by M/s.Hindusthan Maritime Engineering Works and W.P.No.27566 of 2019 has been filed by M/s.Ras Turbo Pvt. Ltd, all challenging a similar communication dated 05.08.2019 received from the second respondent referred to supra. Apart from challenging the communication calling upon the petitioners to pay penalty and vacate the premises, M/s.Hindusthan Marine Engineering Works has filed W.P.No.7584 of 2020 and M/s.Ras Turbo Pvt. Ltd. has filed W.P.No.8051 of 2020 challenging a) the rejection of the respondent by its order dated 04/2020 their request for granting exemption from payment of charges due to Covid-19 lockdown and b) the order confirming the rent claim advices dated 31.03.2020 calling upon them to pay the penalty charges for the occupation of the premises in the Port Trust ar
C.M.Beena vs. P.N.Ramachandra Rao reported in (2004) 3 SCC 595
Qudrat Ullah vs. Municipal Board reported in (1974) 1 SCC 202
B.V.D’Souza vs. Antonio Fausto Fernandes
Mahendra Saree Emporium (II) vs. G.V.Srinivasa Murthy reported in (2005) 1 SCC 481
Hero Vinoth vs. Seshammal reported in (2006) 5 SCC 545
Boodireddy Chandraiah vs. Arigela Laxmi reported in 2007 (8) SCC 155
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.