G.C.Gupta, J. - (1.) This appeal against an order dated 21-12-1993 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court allowing the writ petition. The operative portion of the order of the learned single Judge reads as follows : ?There being no justification for the levy of the hoisting charges, the demand of the respondents cannot be sustained and must be quashed. For the reasons stated the impugned demands of the respondents in so far as they relate to hoisting charges are quashed. The bank guarantee furnished by the petitioners to the respondents in terms of the interim order passed herein must be returned by the respondents to the petitioners duly discharged within a fortnight from the date of service of the operative portion of this judgment upon them. The respondents must also dispose of the petitioner's application for refund being annexure C & E to the petition within 3 months of the date of service of the of the operative portion of this judgment upon them in the light of the observations in this judgment and after giving the petitioners an opportunity to be heard. At least 48 hours clear notice must be give.?
(2.) The undisputed facts of the case briefly stated are as follows : The respondent is an importer of logs. From time to time ships carrying logs imported by the respondent were barthed at the Calcutta Port. Portions of such logs were allowed to be unloaded by the cranes of the ship and were further allowed by the Calcutta Port, to be taken delivery of by the importer directly from the ship. On 12-12-1986 an agreement was verbally arrived at between the Deputy Dock Manager on the one hand and the importers on the other. The discussions were minuted. The agreement arrived at between the parties is as follows : ?He also stated that balance logs on board would be discharged at alongside berth at NSD mainly by ship's derricks. He added that logs discharged to the lighters also would be brought to Calcutta Docks for discharge at an alongside berth. He further stated that all CPT charges including traffic charges would be paid by them in time.?
(3.) It appears that prior to 12-12-1986 claim for refund of a sum of Rs. 38, 850/- and a sum of Rs. 23,301/- had already been made, copies whereof are annexure C to the writ petition. It also appears that subsequent to 12-12-1986 during the period between 19-3-1987 and 21-3-1987 further claims for refund were made copies whereof are annexure E to petition. The basis for such claim in the writ petition is that the goods were unloaded by the cranes of the ship and no hoisting activity was at all undertaken by the respondent (appellant herein) irrespective of these goods.?;