VIJAYALAKSHMI MINERALS TRADING CO Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, the petitioner, who is an exporter of barytes, has prayed for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the orders of the third respondent in C2/23003/82/T, dt. 17-8-1982 and C2/33287/83/T, dt.10-12-1983. On 10-5-1982, the petitioner applied for space for storage of barytes in the transit area of the Madras Port. By proceedings of the third respondent, dt. 31-5-1982, the petitioner was allotted 2000 sq. metres of transit space at Jawahar Dock-IV with effect from 1-6-1982, for a period of one month under the monthly licence system for storage of barytes. The petitioner was required to remit a sum of Rs.30,000 towards security deposit and one month's licence fee in advance. The terms and conditions of allotment of storage space in transit area are governed by the scale of rates framed under the provisions of the Major Port Trusts Act 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). At the time of allotment of space to the petitioner the prevailing rate was Rs.375 per 100 sq. metres as prescribed in the scale of rates then in force. Though the petitioner was initially permitted to occupy the space so allotted for only one month, subsequently, the petitioner was allowed to occupy the allotted space for a period of three months. Meanwhile, the scale of rates was amended by the Board and sanctioned by the Central Government and published in Part VI - S.3(a) of the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette Extraordinary, dt.31-7-1982. In terms of the revision, the monthly licence fee payable for use of the space in transit area was increased to Rs.1500 a month per 100 sq. metres with effect from 1-8-1982. By proceedings of the third respondent dt. 17-8-1982, the petitioner was given notice of the revision in the rates, apart from the publication in the Gazette. The rates were further amended and the amendments were published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette Extraordinary Part VI - S.3(a) dt. 30-11-1983. Thereunder, the monthly rent payable was fixed at Rs.1950 per 100 sq. metres for the open space in the transit area with effect from 1-12-1983, which was also communicated to the petitioner by proceedings of the third respondent dated 10-12-1983. The petitioner seeks to quash the communications referred to earlier on the main ground that the increase in the rates is arbitrary and unreasonable.

(2.) In the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents 2 and 3, they have stated that very limited space is available in the transit area and in public interest it is necessary to make that space available for others who use the port premises and avail the services and the revision of rates was done in accordance with the provisions of Ss.48, 49 and 52 of the Act, after a comparative study of the rates charged by the other major ports in this country, the Central Warehousing Corporation, etc. by similar services and taking into account the facts relating to the expenditure incurred. It was also stated that a revision in the rates in the manner done became necessary keeping in view the duty of the Board to discharge its statutory obligations and services and taking into account the previous revisions, the rates charged in other ports, the extra burden imposed on the port administration owing to expansion schemes, increase of salaries and allowances and amenities, provided to the officials, staff and workers of the Port, etc. The increase in the rate was thus said to be reasonable and not arbitrary.

(3.) Though in the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition it was stated that the procedure for revising the rates had not been followed, at the time of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner accepted that the Board had the power to revise the rates and that the procedure for effecting a revision of rates as per the Act had also been followed. The only contention urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there has been an arbitrary increase in the rates and such increase was wholly unreasonable and unnecessary and opposed to the principles of natural justice and not having any correlation to the cost of services. Reliance in this connection was placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner upon the decisions in Coimbatore Municipality v. Subbiah, (1980) 1 Mad LJ 51, Delhi Municipality v. Birla Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills, AIR 1968 SC 1232, Kasturilal v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, AIR 1980 SC 1992 and Devidas v. State of Punjab, AIR 1967 SC 1895. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents 2 and 3 submitted that the Board is under a statutory obligation to perform certain duties and equally they have statutory powers to fix scales of fees and rates and the relevant criteria had been taken into account before revising the rates and, therefore, no exception can be taken to revision as effected. The learned counsel referred in this connection to the decisions of the Supreme Court in Trustees, Port of Madras v. Aminchand Pyarelal, AIR 1975 SC 1935, Port of Bombay v. Indian Goods Supplying Co., AIR 1977 SC 1622 and Corporation of Calcutta v. Liberty Cinema, AIR 1965 SC 1107.