Amitava Lala, J. - (1.) This writ petition is arising out of imposition of penal rate for the entire demised land in question from the date of construction to the date of payment in respect of occupation of the petitioners under the Calcutta Port Trust. The case of the petitioner is that imposition of penal rate is absolutely arbitrary and in violation of the principles of natural justice. The respondent contended that the Calcutta Port Trust authority under Section 49 of the Major Port Trust Act, 1963 can fix the scale of rates for use of property belonging to the Board, i.e., Board of Trustees for the Port of Calcutta. Moreover, such imposition cannot be amenable under the writ jurisdiction because it governs the contractual field. A threadbare arguments have been put forward both by Mr. Kashi Kanta Moitra, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Suhrid Roy Chowdhury, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Calcutta Port Trust mainly on two issues. The first issue is in respect of interfere of the Writ Court and the second issue is in respect of determination of the appropriate authority, i.e., Central Government or the Board for due consideration.
(2.) In respect of invocation of writ jurisdiction I find that the same was invoked by filing writ petition on 19th February, 1998 when it was formally entertained by Justice Ruma Pal (as His Lordship then was) on 24th February, 1998 by giving directions for filing affidavits. Therefore, such question at this belated stage is largely academic. Particularly, when arbitrariness in imposing the penal rate is the subject-matter before this Writ Court, it is not a money claim simplicitor nor pure and simple question of violation of the terms of the contract. The letter of the Calcutta Port Trust dated 10.3.1978 speaks that no structure will be allowed to be erected on the above land but the cause of action is that temporary sheds were allowed to continue by imposing penalty for whole of the construction area. It is necessary to mention herein that total area is 44.854 sq.ft. out of which the extension is made in respect of 3306 sq.ft. Be that as it may, I do not want to go into such factual controversy any more. Upon going through Section 49 of the Major Port Trust Act, I find when scale of rates for service performed by the Board or other person the same is to be governed by Section 48 when scale of rates and statement of conditions for use of property belonging to Board is concerned it will be governed by Section 49 of the Act. Power lies with the Central Government to require modification or cancellation of such rates under Section 54 of the Act. In AIR 1997 Supreme Court 1057 (Visakhapatnam Port Trust & Anr v. M/s. Ram Bahadur Thakur Pvt. Ltd.) it was held by the Supreme Court that in case of such disputes, Central Government is the appropriate authority for the purpose of due consideration of rates. But according to Mr. Roy Chowdhury, such judgment is applicable in respect of Section 48 but not in respect of Section 49 of the Act. However, a controversy arose in respect of consideration of the matter by the Board of Trustees for the Port of Calcutta or by the Central Government and I am not for a moment can say that the Central Government is powerless in considering any of the disputes if it is taken before it. Both the Sections are equally applicable for its consideration. But since learned Counsel appearing for the Calcutta Port Trust voluntarily offered for consideration and the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner accepted the same in presence of the litigant. I am of the view that presently the matter will be sent for consideration by the Board with regard to factual merits and demerits including the rates and in case there is any dispute, even thereafter, the matter could be resolved by way of intervention of the Central Government.
(3.) In deciding such question since a pertinent question arose about the validity of the writ petition, I am of the view that the same is to be clarified by this Court. In AIR 1990 Supreme Court 1031 (Mahabir Auto Stores & Ors. v. Indian Oil Corporation & Ors.) the Supreme Court held that the State acts in its executive power under Article 298 of the Constitution in entering or not entering any contracts with individual parties, Article 14 of the Constitution would be applicable to those exercises of power. Therefore, the action of the State organ can be checked under Article 14. Every action of the State executive authority must be subject to rule of law and must be informed by reason even though the rights of citizens are in the nature of contractual lines, the manner, method and the motive of decision of entering or not entering into a contract, are subject to judicial review on the touchstone of relevance and reasonableness, fair play, natural justice, equality and non- discrimination.;