2018 (2) TMI 1953 - SC - Indian Laws

Notification dated 18th January, 2016 - Territorial jurisdiction - expansion of port limits of Hazira port - HELD THAT - There can be no doubt that Shri Joshi's plea that the power of the Government to alter the limits of any port Under Section 5(1) of the Indian Ports Act must be done only in public interest is correct. However, it has not been shown to us as to how the impugned notification is contrary to public interest. The affidavits filed in the High Court, by the State Government and the GMB, show that a commercial port's limits were altered in public interest because the number of vessels at Hazira port were expected to increase dramatically and it was, therefore, necessary to make adequate facilities not only for anchorage of such vessels, but also for reasons of customs formalities, port conversion, general security etc. We are not, therefore, satisfied that the notification is ultra vires Section 5 of the Indian Ports Act. We have already seen that the Appellants have no 'right' to private property in view of the fact that the ownership of the captive jetty that has been constructed and the ownership of reclaimed land is with the GMB/State Government - the notification is intra vires as the alteration in the limits of Hazira Port does not affect any 'right' of the Appellants to private property. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Challenge to the notification dated 18th January 2016 under Section 5 of the Indian Ports Act, 1908.
2. Legitimacy of the expanded port limits affecting the Appellants' reclaimed lands.
3. Validity of the approval process for the port expansion.
4. Doctrine of legitimate expectation.
5. Compliance with the Gujarat Infrastructure Development Act, 1999.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Challenge to the Notification:
The appeal involves a challenge to a notification dated 18th January 2016, issued under Section 5 of the Indian Ports Act, 1908, by which the State Government of Gujarat expanded the port limits of Hazira port. The Appellants argued that this expansion directly affected lands reclaimed by them after significant investments.

2. Legitimacy of the Expanded Port Limits:
The Appellants contended that the second proposal for increased area directly impinged upon the reclaimed land, which was done hastily within four days. They argued that the expanded port limits would overlap with the reclaimed area, affecting their investments. The State and Respondents countered that the expansion was within the originally conceived area of 1011 hectares and was necessary for accommodating increased port traffic.

3. Validity of the Approval Process:
The Appellants argued that the approval for the second proposal was done in great haste and without proper consideration. The Respondents maintained that the approval process was in public interest, necessary for accommodating increased vessel traffic and ensuring customs formalities and safety. The court found that the GMB's resolution and the subsequent notification were in public interest and not arbitrary.

4. Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation:
The Appellants claimed that various assurances and MOUs created a legitimate expectation for the use of reclaimed lands. The court noted that the MOUs were valid only for 12 months and did not grant any rights to the Appellants. The correspondence and permissions clearly stated that the reclaimed land would belong to the Government of Gujarat/GMB, negating any legitimate expectation for the Appellants.

5. Compliance with the Gujarat Infrastructure Development Act, 1999:
The Appellants argued that the extension of port limits indirectly granted HPPL an extended port area without bidding, contrary to the Gujarat Infrastructure Development Act. The Respondents countered that the Appellants' real aim was to convert their captive jetty into a commercial port without following the required bidding process. The court upheld that the alteration of port limits was within the legal framework and did not violate the Act.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the appeal, stating that the notification was in public interest and intra vires Section 5 of the Indian Ports Act. The Appellants' claims of legitimate expectation and rights to reclaimed land were not supported by the evidence. The alteration of port limits did not affect any private property rights of the Appellants, and the process followed was legally sound.