S. B. Majmudar, J. - (1.) These three civil appeals on grant of special leave to appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India bring in challenge a common judgment and order rendered by a Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh dismissing two writ appeals moved by the appellant-The Vishakhapatnam Port Trust and its Traffic Manager, and allowing one writ petition moved by the respondent-writ petitioner against the present appellants. The said common judgment and order dated 1st October, 1992 are assailed by the appellants on diverse grounds which will be highlighted in latter part of this judgment; The main grievance of the appellants centers round the question of levying of appropriate handling charges from various shippers who seek to export manganese ore from the wharves of the appellants Port. In order to appreciate this grievance it is necessary to note a few relevant introductory facts.
(2.) The respondent in these appeals were the original writ petitioners before the High Court. They are dealers in manganese ore. They export manganese ore through the Minerals and Metals Trading Corporation of India. For exporting the said, ore they naturally require the services of appellant No. 1 s Port through which their manganese ore is loaded in the ships for export. The appellant-Port for that purpose offers various services and facilities to such shippers. The appellant-Port maintains different yards in its premises. One such yard is known as Rs. Eastern Yard which is divided into several plots of varying extent between 100 square meters and 600 square meters. These plots are leased out by the Port Trust authorities to different shippers. The writ petitioners are the lessees of a few plots. They are at a distance of about 200 meters to 1500 meters from the wharf. These plots are connected by broad gauge railway lines on one side and narrow gauge railway lines on the other side. The ore is transported to the plots on the broad gauge railway line and is transported to ships by narrow gauge railway line. The shippers can also transport the ore to their respective plots by road using dumpers or lorries. The handling of ore from the plots to the ships was previously undertaken by the Port authorities. The entire operation consisted of: (a) Loading of ore into the skips by the Port labour; (b) Transport of ore from the plots to the vessels utilising the internal narrow gauge railway system belonging to the port. (c) Transferring the ore from the skips to the ships hold, utilising the port labour. Under Sections 48, 49 and 50 of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 (for short Rs. the Act) the Board of Trustees is enabled to charge for the services rendered by the Board. In exercise of the powers conferred under Sections 48 and 49 of the Act, the Board periodically notifies the scales of rates and conditions and the handling charges for the manganese ore for the said operation were fixed at the rate of Rs. 35/- per thousand kilograms or one metric ton. These handling charges were inclusive of equipment hire charges. In May, 1986 the writ petitioners received a circular from the Traffic Manager of the Port stating that the then existing N. G. system would not be available and that the revised system would come into force on or around 20th May, 1986. The consequence of the abolition was that the shippers were required to employ their own dumpers and loaders to transport the ore from the dump area to the wharf and load the ore on to the ships utilising their slings. No port labour or other personnel and equipment of the port might be required or utilised as the entire operation would be carried out by the shipper. On 10 June, 1986 the Traffic Manager of the Port issued a circular notifying that a provisional consolidated handling charge of Rs. 30/- per Metric Ton for handling export of manganese ore in the new system, would be levied. Consequently the previous handling charges of Rs. 35/- were substituted by Rs. 30/- per M. T. According to the writ petitioners this levy of charges of Rs. 30/- per M. T. under the new system of handling of manganese ore at the appellant-Port was unreasonable and excessive. They made several representations in this connection. According to the writ petitioners for transporting manganese ore from the plots and putting it on board the ship the shippers will have to incur approximately Rs. 37/- per M. T. and the Port authorities collect Rs. 30/- per M. T. after withdrawal of the services by them. Under these circumstances two writ petitions were filed by respondents in Civil Appeals Nos. 3972 and 3973 of 1993 before the High Court. They were Writ Petitions Nos. 8891 and 14503 of 1986. These writ petitions were heard by a learned single Judge of the High Court who after hearing the parties came to the conclusion that for substituting the new scale of handling charges for manganese ore for the earlier existing scale of Rs. 35/- per M. T. when the Port was providing its own labour and narrow gauge railway line siding for transporting the ore from dumpting yard to the wharf, the procedure required by Section 52 of the Act was not followed by the appellant-Port and hence the new scale of rates could not effectively be pressed in service by the Board against the writ petitioners. So far as the contention of the writ petitioners that the levy of Rs. 30/- per M. T. under the new system of handling of manganese ore pursuant to the impugned Circulars dated 19th May, 1986, 10th June, 1986, and 18th July, 1986 and Resolution dated 26th June, 1986 was excessive and unreasonable was concerned, the learned single Judge observed that it was not for the Court to work out the details minutely to find out the actual cost incurred for the service and then decide at what rate the handling charges should be collected by the Port and that the Central Government will have to consider all these aspects while granting sanction to the new scale of handling charges under Section 52 of the Act, Accordingly the impugned Circulars and Resolution of 1986 were quashed and writ petitions were allowed. The appellants herein filed writ appeals against the aforesaid order of the learned single Judge being Writ Appeals Nos. 1379 and 1380 of 1987 before the High Court. Said two writ appeals along with the companion Writ Petition No. 17407 of 1987 were heard by a Division Bench of the High Court which by the impugned common judgment and order confirmed the decision of the learned single Judge and dismissed the writ appeals. Companion writ petition was also allowed. The Division Bench noted that the handling charges of Rs. 30/- per M. T. with respect to manganese ore and other ores in the light of the fresh system came to be later on sanctioned by the Central Government under Section 52 of the Act and they came in force with effect from 12th February, 1992. Therefore, the controversy survived regarding the appropriate handling charges for manganese ores for the period from 20th May, 1986 to 12th February, 1992 and for that period the Central Government, while exercising its powers under Section 52 of the Act, was required to consider the question regarding fixing of appropriate handling charges after giving notice to the writ petitioners and hearing their objections, if any. It was further directed that whatever payments were made by the writ petitioners during the pendency of the writ appeals and writ petition before the High Court at the rate of Rs. 20/- per M. T. in respect of consignments of manganese ore would be subject to the final adjustment to be made in the light of the decision of the Central Government. Rival contentions
(3.) At the time of final hearing of these appeals Shri Vinod Bobde, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants vehemently submitted that the Division Bench of the High Court had ex facie erred in law in taking the view that the rates of handling charges for manganese ore as fixed by the Boards simpugned Resolution dated 26th June, 1986 were required to be sanctioned by the Central Government under S. 52 of the Act and without such prior sanction they could not operate. It was submitted that the earlier sanctioned rate under S. 52 was Rs. 35/- per M. T. which held the field from 1st January, 1984 and this scale of rates was duly published by the appellant-Port. That thereafter on two occasions the appellant-Port gave remission to alleviate the hardship of the shippers exporting manganese ore by utilising the services offered by the appellant-Port. That one such remission was given by the Board in its meeting No. 7 of 1984-85 held on 30th October, 1984. That was the remission of Rs. 5/- per M. T. of manganese ore brought by dumpers to Visakhapatnam Port and exported therefrom. This remission was to be given on the basis of the certificate issued by the Dock Labour Board. Thus this remission was conditional remission. It was admittedly under S. 53 of the Act, That subsequently when the facility of utilisation of narrow gauge railway line on the premises of the Board was withdrawn the Board by the impugned resolution dated 26th June, 1986 gave a fresh remission of Rs. 5/- per M. T. from the sanctioned rate of Rs. 35/- per M. T. by making it unconditional. Consequently even the impugned Resolution dated 26th June, 1986 also remained within the four corners of S. 53 of the Act and that the High Court was in error in taking the view that these impugned Circulars sought to introduce a new scale of rates which required prior sanction of the Central Government under S. 52 of the Act,;