JUDGMENT :

B.R. SARANGI, J.

The petitioner is a Limited Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and carrying on business in steel sector, mostly engaged in Cold rolled, galvanized and special steel producer having its producing plant located at Meramandali, Orissa required to import different items through Paradip Port. For the purpose of said import, an arrangement was made to utilize the plots allotted for a period of 11 months on charging of ground rent subject to renewal. The plots have been classified as siding plots and non-siding plots depending upon their proximity from the railway line. The petitioner having been allotted with the plots, the same were utilized as per the terms and conditions of such allotment, but all of a sudden on 06.04.2011 in Annexure-3, Paradip Port Trust introduced Minimum Guarantee Throughput (MGT) for siding and non-siding plots though subsequently by letter dated 03.01.2012 under Annexure-4, the same has been withdrawn. The period of which the petitioner was in possession of the siding and non-siding plots those were utilized to ensure the movement of Minimum Guarantee Quantum for which the petitioner had to execute a bank guarantee of Rs.12,63,64,500/- issued on 20.05.2011 and was valid up to 31.07.2012. But, the opposite party having raised illegal demand on 04.04.2012 for an amount of Rs.5,24,05,296/- vide Annexure-9 which was subsequently revised on 05.04.2012 amounting to Rs.4,73,09,637/- vide Annexure-10, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing this present writ petition.

2. Mr. R.K. Rath, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner along with Miss S. Ratho, advocate strenuously urged before this Court that Paradip Port Trust has no authority to fix MGT pursuant to letter under Annexure-3 dated 06.04.2011. Apart from the same, the petitioner being the “licencee”, the Land Policy for Major Ports issued by the Ministry of Shipping, Government of India dated 13.01.2011 has no application in the present case, if at all same is applicable, would be applicable to the “lease” holder. As such, there is difference between “lease” and “licence”. The petitioner being the licence holder, the said principle is not applicable. Thereby any consequential demand raised cannot sustain in the eye of law. To substantiate his contentions, he has relied upon Purbanchal Cables and Conductors Private Limited v. Assam State Electricity Board and another, (2012) 7 SCC 462, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board & Anr. V. Status Spinning Mills Ltd. & Anr., AIR 2008 SC 2838, Union of India and Ors. v. B.V. Gopinath, AIR 2014 SC 88, M.P. Gopalakrishnan Nair and another v. State of Kerala and others, (2005) 11 SCC 45 and Shehla Burney (DR.) and others v. Syed Ali Mossa Raza (dead) by Lrs. And Others, (2011) 6 SCC 529 along with other decisions.

3. Mr. G. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the Paradip Port Trust argued with vehemence stating that the entire action has been taken by imposing MGT being a part of Land Policy for Major Ports, 2010 issued by the Ministry of Shipping, Government of India dated 13.01.2011. Therefore, the claim made by the opposite party-Paradip Port Trust is wholly and fully justified. Apart from the same, it is urged that when MGT has been fixed, the petitioner has not objected the same. Rather having acted upon on the basis of such MGT, subsequently demand was raised, he could not have assailed the same before this Court by filing the present writ petition. To substantiate his contention, he has relied upon State of Haryana and others v. Lal Chand and others, AIR 1984 SC 1326 and Manish Kumar Shahi v. State of Bihar and others, (2010) 12 SCC 576.

4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter has been decided finally at the stage of admission.

5. The thrust of the contention is that Paradip Port Trust has no authority to issue office order dated 06.04.2011 in Annexure-3 by imposing M