ASHOK KUMAR MATHUR, C.J. - (1.) This is an appeal directed against the order passed by the Learned single Judge dated 19/07/1988 whereby the learned single Judge has dismissed the writ petition. Aggrieved against this order the present appeal has been filed.
(2.) The brief facts which are necessary for disposal of this appeal are that the petitioner filed the present writ petition praying that the circular dated 4/04/1981 issued by the Manager Traffic Operation, Haldia Dock Complex as regards the imposition of penal rate at three times of the ordinary rate of rent on cargo not cleared within the month of the date of landing at Haldia General Cargo Berth be quashed. This notification was issued on 4/04/1981 and it was brought into effect from 1st of April, 1981. This was challenged by the petitioner on the ground that this circular for levy of penal rent at treble rate of the ordinary rate is wholly bad in law and without jurisdiction. According to the Major Port Trust Act, 1963 this cannot be levied without the approval of the Central Government. It was submitted that this circular is dehors the provisions of the Major Port Trust Act, 1963. It was submitted that formation of opinion of the Trustee is conspicuously absent and the Chairman is swayed by some co-lateral considerations and there is no provision for imposition of penal rent. The writ petition was contested by the respondent Port Trust Authorities and it was submitted that under S. 6-A(VI) of the Scale of Rates the Board on Port Trust is authorised to charge three times of scheduled rent. It was submitted that on account of congestion of Port that goods remain uncleared in the port premises for a long time and affect operational efficiency therefore the Board took this decision. This levy of treble rent on the uncleared consignment was resorted so as to expeditiously despatch goods which are stagnated on the Port premises. It was also submitted that all the actions taken under the Major Port Trust Act, 1963 and the Scale of Rates (Scheduled of Charges) on the goods at the dock have been duly approved by the Central Government. The learned single Judge after examining the matter found that the levy is correct and there is no infirmity in the aforesaid notification of imposing treble rent on the goods which have been brought on the Port beyond the period of one month hence the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition. Aggrieved against that order the present appeal has been filed by the appellant.
(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the levy is without jurisdiction and will only have a prospective effect and the goods which have been already brought prior to this imposition and remained on the Port for beyond the period of one month cannot be subjected to treble rent as the notification is prospective in effect and all the goods which are brought after the notification that is 1/04/1981 and stacked beyond the period of one month then on that goods this levy of treble rent can be charged. Though the question of prospective/retrospective effect of the notification was not argued before the learned single Judge. Only point which was agitated before the learned single Judge was competence to issue this circular/notification. However, it was a pure question of law that it will have prospective or retrospective effect therefore we permitted learned counsel to make this submission.;