9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (8) TMI 1147 - HC - CustomsRejection of petitioner's application for setting up CFS - approval to the fourth respondent to shift its existing CFS from Madhavaram to Vallur village - primary contention of writ petitioner is that if a policy decision has been taken to not to encourage CFS close to Chennai and some other Ports, the same should be applied uniformly / evenly irrespective of whether it is a case of shifting a CFS or opening a new CFS - HELD THAT - Factual position that location where writ petitioner wants to commence CFS and location where fourth respondent wants to shift its existing CFS are virtually adjacent to each other and equidistant from Port is also not in dispute - It is the stated position of official respondents that it makes no difference qua convenience of trade or public safety with regard to locations of writ petitioner and fourth respondent. Therefore, it follows as a sequittur that official respondents are neither interested nor indifferent to the location. This court has no difficulty in accepting the argument that the nature of applications of writ petitioner and fourth respondent are different as one is for a new CFS and the other is for shifting the existing CFS. This court also notices that the location is one in which official respondents are neither particular nor indifferent. Therefore, it boils down to commercial interests of writ petitioner and fourth respondent. Safe conclusion reached is writ petitioner cannot impede the application of fourth respondent for shifting, though writ petitioner is entitled to say that it should be given an opportunity as there is no disputation that there is nothing to demonstrate that writ petitioner was called / put on notice to attend 6.2.2019 meeting. Petition allowed in part.
Issues Involved:
1. Rejection of the petitioner's application for setting up a Container Freight Station (CFS). 2. Approval of the fourth respondent's application to shift its existing CFS. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Rejection of the petitioner's application for setting up a Container Freight Station (CFS): The petitioner, a private limited company, applied on 21.10.2016 to set up a CFS at Sendrambakkam. The application underwent several rounds of document submissions and communications with the first respondent. On 29.09.2017, the first respondent informed the petitioner that the application was deferred due to the large number of existing CFSs in Chennai. Further correspondence followed, and on 23.04.2018, the petitioner was informed that a policy decision to encourage Direct Port Delivery (DPD) and Direct Port Export (DPE) had been taken. On 26.02.2019, the petitioner received an email stating that their application was rejected because they did not attend the IMC meeting on 06.02.2019. The petitioner claimed they never received any notice to attend this meeting. The rejection was based on the policy decision that no new facilities would be opened near ports like Chennai due to the focus on DPD/DPE. The court noted that the rejection of the petitioner's application was based on proximity to Chennai Port and the policy to encourage DPD/DPE. The court found that the petitioner's application, which was under active consideration, was rejected without proper notice to attend the IMC meeting. Therefore, the court directed the official respondents to give the petitioner another opportunity to represent its case for setting up a CFS. The rejection order was set aside, and the IMC was instructed to include the petitioner's application in the agenda of the ensuing meeting, clarifying whether proximity to the port or the number of CFSs was the determinant for the policy decision. 2. Approval of the fourth respondent's application to shift its existing CFS: The fourth respondent applied to shift its existing CFS from Madhavaram to Vallur Village. Initially, this application was rejected on 23.04.2018, but on 06.02.2019, the IMC gave in-principle approval for the shift, treating it as a transfer rather than a new application. The petitioner challenged this approval, arguing that the policy decision to not open new facilities near ports should be applied uniformly, whether for new CFSs or shifting existing ones. The court found that the applications of the petitioner and the fourth respondent were different in nature—one for a new CFS and the other for shifting an existing CFS. The court noted that the official respondents had stated that the number of CFSs would not increase if the fourth respondent's shift was approved, as it was contingent on closing the existing CFS at Madhavaram. The court held that the official respondents could proceed with processing the fourth respondent's application for shifting its CFS, provided they clarified whether the policy determinant was proximity to the port, the number of CFSs, or both. The court directed that the IMC include an agenda for further considering the in-principle approval for the fourth respondent's shift in the ensuing meeting. Decision: W.P.No.17679 of 2019 was partly allowed, setting aside the rejection of the petitioner's application and directing the official respondents to give the petitioner another opportunity to represent its case. W.P.No.17685 of 2019 was dismissed, allowing the official respondents to proceed with the fourth respondent's application for shifting its CFS. The court emphasized that the IMC should clarify the policy determinants and include both applications in the agenda of the ensuing meeting, keeping in mind the court's observations. No costs were awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.
|
