Statutory liens held by dock authorities cannot be extinguished by court action without consent; priority of claims must be upheld.

1. This is a notice of motion taken out by the plaintiff in an Admiralty Suit. It seeks a declaration that the plaintiff has priority for his claim, which has been decreed, against the sale proceeds of the 1st defendant vessel (M. V. Kapitan Mitsos), which are lying in Court; in the alternative, for a declaration that his claim ranks pari passu with the claim of the Trustees of the Port of Bombay (B.P.T.) for anchorage fees in regard to the said vessel; and for ancillary reliefs.

2. The said vessel entered the port of Bombay on 9th June, 1980 and remained therein until after 24th Oct., 1985. It was first arrested by this Court in Admiralty Suit No. 13 of 1980, Adam Abdul Khan v. M. V. Kapitan Mitsos.

3. On 27th Sept., 1980 the B.P.T. passed a resolution sanctioning an amendment to its Port and Pilotage Scale of Rates. The sanction of the Government of India in regard to the amendment was sought on 20th Oct., 1983 under S.52 of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 . The sanction was granted on 9th Dec., 1983 and the amendment was published in the Maharashtra Government Gazette dt. 29th Dec., 1983. In consequence of the amendment, the said vessel became liable to anchorage fees from 28th Jan., 1984.

4. On 10th Sept., 1984 the said vessel was arrested by the B.P.T. for failure to pay its charges, amounting on 1st Aug., 1984 to Rs. 2,14,031.35. The notice then issued by the B.P.T. stated that the said vessel would be sold under the provisions of S.64(2) of the said Act, after obtaining the permission of this Court, if its charges were of paid within 5 days. On 7th Jan., 1985 the advocates of the B.P.T. informed the Sheriff of the arrest made by the B.P.T. and called upon him to inform bidders for the said vessel that it would not be permitted to be removed until the B.P.T. charges were paid.

5. On 2nd April, 1985 an order was passed by this Court in Notice of Motion No. 199 of 1985 (taken out by a crew member) in Admiralty Suit No. 22 of 1980 (filed by another crew member) directing the Sheriff to sell the said vessel. On 30th April, 1985 the present suit was filed and the said vessel arrested therein. On 10th May, 1985 the B.P.T. wrote to the Sheriff calling upon him to apprise bidders at the auction sale of the said vessel, which had been fixed on 13th May, 1985, of its claim. On 13th May, 1985 the auction sale was held but the reserve price of Rs. 25 lakhs was not reached. On 20th May, 1985 the Sheriff made a report to the Court in this behalf. On 1st July, 1985. upon a further report, the Court directed the Sheriff to reduce the reserve price and hold a fresh auction sale. On 9th July, 1985 the Sheriff informed the B.P.T. that the auction sale would be held on 22nd July, 1985. On 19th July, 1985 the advocates of the B.P.T. requested the Sheriff to apprise bidders at the auction of its outstanding claim. The second auction sale also proved infructuous. On 26th July, 1985 the Sheriff made a further report to the Court. For the first time, notice of the report was not given to the B.P.T. On the report the court, on 2nd Aug., 1985, ordered the Sheriff to invite private offers for the said vessel and fixed Rs. 20 lakhs as the reserve price. On 30th Aug., 1985 the Sheriff made a report to the Court, notice of which was again not given to the B.P.T. Upon this report the Court directed the Sheriff to accept a private offer of Rs. 19,50,000/-. On 15th Oct. 1985 the Sheriff made another report to the Court. Notice thereof was not given to the B.P.T. In it the Sheriff stated that the price of Rs. 19,50,000/- had been received. It also stated that the advocates of the B.P.T. had informed