Susanta Chatterji, J. - (1.) The Rule was issued on 29-5-1981 at the instance of the writ petitioners who have prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to withdraw, cancel and/or rescind the circular dated 4-4-1981 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 from the date of landing at Haldia General Cargo Berth. The copy of the said circular is annexed to the writ petition marked by letter 'B'. It appears from the said circular that the Chairman, Calcutta Port Trust has approved the recovery of triple rent on cargo at Haldia if not cleared within one month from the date of landing and the order will take effect on and from 1-4-1981. While issuing the rule an interim order of injunction was granted in terms of prayer (f) by restraining the respondents from giving any effect or further effect to the approval of the Chairman, Calcutta Port Trust as communicated under circular dated 4-4-1981 as aforesaid and further from taking any steps or further steps seeking to impose levy and/or collect penal rent at triple rate of the ordinary rate of rents and further directing the respondents to allow the petitioners to clear the goods on payment of usual rent and further restraining the respondents from giving any effect or further effect to and from taking any steps or further steps on the basis of the rent bills being annexure 'A' to the writ petition. The writ petition has been filed on the ground that the purported levy, imposition and/or collection of penal rent at triple rate of the ordinary rate of rent is wholly bad in law and without jurisdiction. Under the extant provisions of law and/or the rules framed under the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 rates relating to Scale of Rates (Schedule of Charges) will govern the rates pertaining to rent and other charges in respect of Haldia Dock Complex. The rent bills issued in respect of consignment referred to are ex facie, illegal and without any authority of law inasmuch as there is no warrant and/or sanction of law to justify such imposition of rent. The circular dated 4-4-1981 is due to utter overzealousness to collect rental charges at three times of the original rate of rent is unwarranted and uncalled for. The Chairman, Calcutta Port Trust is not competent to decide imposition of penal rates and to recover the triple rate of rent under the provisions of Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 and under Section 6 of Scale of Rates (Schedule of Charges). According to the petitioners the circular dated 4-4-1981 is de hors the provisions of Section 6 of the Scale of Rates (Schedule of Charges) and is as such wholly illegal, arbitrary and mala fide and consequently the same is invalid, inoperative and unenforceable. It is further alleged that the formation of opinion of the Trustees is conspicuously absent and the Chairman is swayed by some collateral considerations and there being no provision for such imposition of penal rent the approval of the Chairman vis-a-vis the circular dated 4-4-1981 is bad in law.
(2.) The writ petition is very seriously contested by the respondents - Port Trust Authorities, Calcutta. It is contended that often consignments landed from ships remain uncleared in the port premises for a long time and affect operational efficiency. To counteract such delay in clearance of goods, there is provision in Section 6A(VI) of the Scale of Rates under which the Board is authorised to charge three times of scheduled rent on any grounds which in the Board's opinion could have been removed from the port premises before rent was incurred. To have a beneficial impact the imposition of such triple rent on any uncleared consignment should be done as soon as the situation begins to (affect) operational efficiency and to cause congestion in transit sheds. In order to obviate any delay in imposing triple rent in such a situation the Chairman or the Deputy Chairman is authorised to levy triple rent on uncleared import consignments and the same was made and the order of the Chairman, was placed before the Board and the same was ratified in accordance with law. All other allegations of the writ petitioners have been controverted by asserting that the acts done and/or caused to have been done by the Port Trust Authorities are neither contrary to nor inconsistent with the provisions as laid down in the Major Port Trusts Act of 1963 and the Scale of Rates (Schedule of Charges) on goods at the docks, jetties and inland vessels, wharves and on vessels with the approval of the Central Government. The petitioner, has however, filed an affidavit-in-reply reiterating the stand taken in the main writ petition.
(3.) Mr. Bholanath Sen and Mr. Samaraditya Pal, the learned counsels appearing for the petitioners have mainly argued that under Section 52 of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 every Scale of Rates and every statement of conditions framed by a Board under the foregoing provisions of this Chapter VI (Imposition and Recovery of Rates at Ports) shall be submitted to the Central Government for sanction and shall have effect when so sanctioned and published by the Board in the Official Gazette. In the instant case, no steps have been taken by the Board who imposed such penalty. Under Section 21 of the said Act a Board, may with the approval of the Central Government, specify - (a) the powers and duties conferred or imposed upon the Board by or under this Act, which may also be exercised or performed by the Chairman, and (b) the powers and duties conferred or imposed on the Chairman by or under this Act, which may also be exercised or performed by the Deputy Chairman or any officer of the Board and the conditions and restrictions, if any, subject to which such powers and duties- may be exercised and performed : Provided that any powers and duties conferred or imposed upon the Deputy Chairman or any officer of the Board under clause (b) shall be exercised and performed by him subject to the supervision and control of the Chairman. It is mainly argued that in order to impose the penal rent the Board has neither sought any approval of the Central Government nor the Board can delegate its power to the Chairman without the approval of the Central Government. Any act done by the Chairman which is otherwise absolutely illegal cannot be ratified by the Board at a later stage to regularise the same. The scheme of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 has been framed so that the Board concerned of any Port may act consistently and the Central Government will have the authority to control and/or approve the proposed acts and actions. In the present case, steps are being taken to realise the triple rate of rent without having the approval and/or sanction of the Central Government and the entire action is bereft of any sanction in law and consequently the same is not enforceable.;