9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to circulars impugned by petitioner regarding destuffing of imported consignments; Allegation of unnecessary demurrage charges due to circulars limiting destuffing to two consignments at a time; Non-remission of demurrage charges leading to filing of present petition; Interpretation of circulars under Major Port Trusts Act, 1963; Legal effect of circulars and requirement of publication under Section 132 of the Act; Application for exemption or remission of rates under Section 53 of the Act; Judicial review of policy on destuffing consignments and demurrage charges. Analysis: 1. The petitioner challenged circulars issued by Respondent No. 1 limiting destuffing of imported consignments to two at a time, leading to unnecessary demurrage charges. The petitioner claimed to be an actual user of raw material for manufacturing shoddy yarn and faced delays in destuffing due to circulars, resulting in demurrage charges. 2. The petitioner filed a petition against non-remission of demurrage charges, leading to directions for destuffing within seven days and payment of charges. The appellate court modified the order, requiring a bank guarantee and payment. The destuffing and clearance of goods were specified in a schedule. 3. Counsel for the petitioner argued that circulars lacked legal force as they were not published under the Major Port Trusts Act, citing legal precedents. He contended that circulars restricting destuffing were invalid and that remission should be granted for detained goods without available destuffing space. 4. Respondent No. 1's counsel argued that circulars were guidelines for implementing port policy and did not require publication. He suggested the petitioner could seek exemption or remission under Section 53 of the Act for demurrage charges. 5. The court found the circulars to be internal memos to manage dock congestion, with no illegality or procedural impropriety. Referring to legal precedents, the court held that judicial review was limited to illegality, irrationality, and procedural impropriety, which were not established by the petitioner. 6. The petitioner's claim based on circulars granting remission to specific consignments was rejected as they did not apply to the petitioner's case. The court found no basis for remission and rejected the writ petition, advising the petitioner to seek remission under Section 53 of the Act. 7. The writ petition was rejected, but the petitioner was allowed to apply for remission under Section 53, to be processed promptly by Respondent No. 1. 8. A stay of the order was requested for eight weeks, during which the bank guarantee was not to be encashed. The petitioner was instructed to maintain the bank guarantee during this period. 9. A certified copy of the judgment was expedited for the parties involved.
|
