Ajit Kumar Sengupta, J. - (1.) This appeal has been preferred from an interim order dated 16th June, 1988, made by a Learned Single Judge of this Court on a writ petition filed by Auto Distributors Ltd. (Appellant No 1) and its shareholder (Appellant No. 2) challenging the constitutional validity of Sections 49 & 52 of the Major Port Trust Act 1963 thereinafter referred to as "Act") and the enhancement by the respondent Board of Trustees for the port of Calcutta thereinafter referred to as "the Port Trust") of the rent charges payable by the appellants for the occupation of Port premises by a notice dated 12th October, 1987, and Notification dated 28th March, 1988, published in Calcutta Gazette Extraordinary dated 31st March, 1988 The appellants are aggrieved by that part of the order dated 16th June, 1988, whereby the learned Judge directed the appellants to pay at the rate brought by the unilateral enhancement made by the impugned notice dated 12th October, 1987,
(2.) Since the appeal was from an interiam order we are not inclined to interfere in the matter. The parties, however, made a joint request that we should dispose of the entire controversy on merits by deciding the writ petition itself. Accordingly, by consent of parties, we decided to hear out the writ petition on merits and appropriate directions were given in this regard.
(3.) After the conclusion of the hearing, the Learned Counsel appearing for the parties suggested that they would file their notes of submissions in brief and this Court gave them liberty to do so and reserved judgment. The written notes, however, were submitted much later than the date specified and only on 6th June, 1991, a copy of the judgment of the Bombay High Court was placed before us.;