2026:MHC:233 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 20-01-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S. M. SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN WA No. 2033 of 2023 AND CMP No.17280 OF 2023 & CMP No. 17275 OF 2023

1. The Chennai Port Authority Rep by its Chairman, 1 Rajaji Salai, Chennai 1

2. The Deputy Chairperson,Chennai Port Authority, 1 Rajaji Salai, Chennai 1

3. Senior Deputy Chief AccountsOfficer (Revenue) Chennai Port Trust, 1 Rajaji Salai, Chennai 1

4. Financial Advisor and Chief Accounts Officer,Chennai Port Trust, 1, Rajaji Salai, Chennai 1 ..Appellant(s)

Vs

1. The Great Eastern Shipping Company LtdOcean House, 134A, Dr.Annie Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai 400 001 rep by its Company Secretary Mr. Jayesh, Trivedi

2. Union Of Indiathrough Secretary, Ministry of Shipping, Transport Bhavan, New Delhi 110

001 ..Respondent(s)

WA No. 2033 of 2023 To set aside the Judgment dated 22.03.2022 made in WP.No.34100 of 2014.

For Appellant(s): Mr.Krishna Ravindran For Respondent(s): Mr..Karthik Sundaram for R1.

JU D G M E N T

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.M.Subramaniam J.)

The Chennai Port Authority is the appellant, challenging the writ order dated 22.03.2022 passed in W.P.No.34100 of 2014. 2. The 1^st respondent instituted a writ proceedings challenging the demand dated 16.12.2014 to pay cargo related charges for the Vessel ”Jag Roopa” arrived at Chennai Port. Perusal of the said demand would show that no details regarding the Cargo related charges are made available and it is a routine demand issued regarding cargo related charges to be recovered on the Vessel arriving at Chennai Port.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant would mainly contend that Chennai Port is entitled to levy wharfage on vessels calling on the Port which were declared “Cargo” in the IGM and EGM forms submitted before the Customs authorities. Similar wharfage charges on various vessels had already been issued and the charges being permissible under the rules, the writ order, quashing the demand is not in consonance with the statute and the rules in force.

4. Learned counsel for the 1^st respondent would oppose by stating that jurisdiction point has been raised by the 1^st respondent/writ petitioner. An improper authority issued the impugned demand notice dated 16.12.2014. Recovery of Wharfage charges is not contemplated and as per the clarification of the tariff authority, no such charges is leviable on the Vessel arriving to Chennai Port.

5. This Court heard the parties to the lis.

6. Ordinarily, no writ against demand is entertainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the present case, the demand dated 16.12.2014 is all about payment of cargo related charges on the vessel “Jag Roopa” arrived at Chennai Port. Thus, it is a routine demand issued for recovery of cargo related charges on the Vessel by the Chennai Port Trust. In the absence of any adjudication with reference to the documents and facts, it would be unnecessary for the High Court to decide the disputed facts involved. No doubt, the 1^st respondent has raised the jurisdictional point. However, it is mixed question of fact and law which require an adjudication based on documents and evidences available on record. In the event of entering into an adjudication in a writ proceedings or conduct roving enquiry, there is a possibility of miscarriage of justice. Therefore, the High Court in exercise of power under judicial review under Article 226 cannot decide the disputed facts of this nature which requires adjudication from the hands of the competent authority.

7. It is brought to the notice of this Court that an Adjudicatory Board has been constituted under the Major Ports Authorities Act, 2021. Section 54 of the Act is about constitution of Adjudicatory Board. Section 58 contemplates powers and functions of Adjudicatory Board. The Adjudicatory Board is competent to adjudicate the issues relating to tariff. Therefore, the 1^st respondent has to exhaust the statutory remedy contemplat