9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Appeal from rejection of Writ Petition based on Section 48 of Major Port Trusts Act, 1968 and delay in filing Writ Petition.
Analysis: 1. The appellant's appeal was based on the argument that the application of Section IIIA of the scale of rates charged at the Docks, as approved by the Single Judge, would be ultra vires of Section 48 of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1968. The court found merit in this contention and deemed it necessary to examine the legal submission in depth. Despite the argument not being advanced before the Single Judge, the court observed that it was reflected in the petition and needed thorough examination. The court acknowledged the delay in moving the appeal Court against the impugned order but did not find it sufficient to reject the Writ Petition outright. 2. The appellant was accused of filing the original Writ Petition after a considerable delay, beyond the special period of limitation prescribed under Section 120 of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963. The court referred to the observations in a previous case to highlight that there are no hard and fast rules regarding delay. The appellant had addressed a letter to the respondents claiming remission on specific grounds, and the court considered the entire factual background before deciding not to reject the Writ Petition solely based on the delay. The court noted delays in filing the Writ Petition and moving the appeal Court but decided to admit the Appeal for hearing. 3. Considering the circumstances, the court decided to dispose of the appeal at the stage of admission itself. The Appeal was admitted, and the order rejecting the Writ Petition was set aside. The court substituted the original order with a new one, setting out rules for further proceedings. The costs of the appeal were to be considered as costs in the Writ Petition. The court clarified that its observations on the merit of the contention and the delay were tentative and would be further analyzed during the hearing of the Rule by the Single Judge or the Bench. This judgment highlights the importance of legal submissions based on relevant statutes and the court's discretion in considering delays in filing petitions. The court's decision to admit the Appeal and set aside the original order demonstrates a fair and thorough examination of the issues raised by the appellant.
|
