9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (2) TMI 589X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ciate this grievance it is necessary to note a few relevant introductory facts. The respondents in these appeals were the original writ petitioners before the High Court. They are dealers in manganese ore. The export manganese ore through the Minerals and Metals Trading Corporation of India. For exporting the said ore they naturally require the services of appellant no.1's Port through which their manganese ore is loaded in the ships for export. The appellant-Por for that purpose offers various services and facilities to such shippers The appellant-Port maintains different yards in its premises. One such yard is known as `Eastern Yard' which is divided into several plots of varying extent between 100 square meters and 600 square meters. These plots are leased out by the Port Trust authorities to different shippers. The writ petitioners are the lessees of a few plots. They are at a distance of about 200 meters to 1500 meters from the wharf. These plots are connected by broad gauge railway lines on one side and narrow gauge railway lines on the other side. The ore is transported to the plots on the broad gauge railway line and is transported to ships by narrow gauge railway ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Port authorities collect ₹ 30/- per M.T. after withdrawal of the services by them. Under these circumstances two writ petitions were filed by respondents in Civil Appeals Nos. 3972 and 3973 of 1993 before the High Court. They were Writ Petition Nos. 8891 and 14503 of 1986. These writ petitions were heard by a learned Single Judge of the High Court after hearing the parties came to the conclusion that for substituting the new scale of handling charges for manganese ore for the earlier existing scale of ₹ 35/- per M.T. when the Port was providing its own labour and narrow gauge railway line siding for transporting the ore from dumping yard to the wharf, the procedure required by Section 52 of the Act was not followed by the appellant-Port and hence the new scale of rates could not effectively the pressed in service by the Board against the writ petitioners. So far as the contention of the writ petitioners that the levy of ₹ 30/- per M.T. under the new system of handling of manganese ore pursuant to the impugned circulars dated 19th May 1986, 10th June 1986, and 18th July 1986 and resolution dated 26th June 1986 was excessive and unreasonable was concerned, the learn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uired to be sanctioned by the Central Government under Section 52 of the Act and without such prior sanction they could not operate. It was submitted that the earlier sanctioned rate under Section 52 was ₹ 35/- per M.T. which held the field from 1st January 1984 and this scale of rates was duly published by the appellant-Port. That thereafter on two occasions the appellant-Port gave remission to alleviate the hardship of the shippers exporting manganese ore by utilising the services offered by the appellant-Port. That one such remission was given by the Board in its meeting No. 7 of 1984-85 held on 30th October 1984. That was the remission of ₹ 5/- per M.T. of manganese ore brought by dumpers to Visakhapatnam Port and exported therefrom. This remission was to be given on the basis of the certificate issued by the Dock Labour Board. Thus remission was a conditional remission. It was admittedly under Section 53 of the Act. That subsequently when the facility of utilisation of narrow gauge railway line on the premises of the Board was withdrawn the Board by the impugned resolution dated 26th June 1986 gave a fresh remission of ₹ 5/- per M.T. from the sanctioned rate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ese ore levied by the appellant- Board from 1st January 1984 was fixed in the light of the type of services then rendered by the Board and the infrastructural facilities made available by the Board to the shippers in these days. That under the previous system the Port authorities handled the ore from the plots to the ships by utilising the port labour and the internal railway system belonging to the Port and for the entire operation handling charges were levied at the rate of ₹ 35/- per M.T. That under the new system sought to be introduced from June 1986 onwards transportation of ore was to be the responsibility of the shippers who had to employ their own labour. Under these circumstances when the Board fixed scale of rates at ₹ 30/- per M.T. and when the earlier infrastructural facilities and the benefit of utilisation of internal railway system earlier available to the shippers were withdrawn, the said rate of ₹ 30/- per M.T. would obviously become a new scale of rates interlinked with the changed system of conditions for handling manganese ore from June 1986 onwards and consequently prior sanction of such new rates in the light of the new system was a conditio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... decision of the Central Government. He however added a rider to his submission that in case according to the decision of the Central Government the respondents become entitled to refund of any amount this Court may fix appropriate rate of interest to be paid by the appellant-Board to the respondents on such amounts. Points for determination. In the light of the aforesaid rival contentions the following points arise for our determination: 1. Whether the impugned circulars dated 19th May 1986, 10th June 1986 and 18th July 1986 and the impugned resolution of the Board dated 26th June 1986 amount to remission of the then existing rates of handling charges for manganese ore covered by Section 53 of the Act of whether these rates require prior sanction of the Central Government under Section 52 of the Act before they could become effective. 2. Whether the impugned rates of handling charges were unreasonable, excessive and based on no proper quid pro quo between the services rendered by the Board and the charges levied by the Board for such services. 3. Whether there was any effective scale of rates for handling manganese ore at the premises of the appellant-Port during the relevan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... relevant in this connection. They read as under: "48.(1)(b). landing and shipping of passengers or goods from or to such vessels to or from any wharf, quay, jetty, pier, dock, berth, mooring, stage or erection, land or building in the possession or occupation of the Board or at any place within the limits of the port or port approaches; (c) ... ... ... ... (d) ... ... ... ... (e) any other service in respect of vessels, passengers or goods, excepting the services in respect of vessels for which fees are chargeable under the Indian Ports Act." A conjoint reading of Section 42(1) shows that the Board has to frame a scale of rates at which and a statement of conditions under which the concerned services are made available at the major port by the Board concerned. It, therefore, becomes clear that the scale of rates for brans- shipment of goods to and from vessels in the port or port approaches and for landing and shipping of goods from or to such vessels from any wharf, quay, jetty, pier, dock etc. within the premises of the port, has a direct linkage with the conditions under which such services are rendered. Consequently, the scale of rates for such services whi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ions under which such concerned services are offered by the Board to the shippers. Therefore, the given scheme of conditions in the light of which scales of rates by way of handling charges are fixed by the Board has a direct impact on the fixation of such scales of rates. In other words such scales of rates are not fixed in vacuum but in connection with the nature of the conditions under which such services are offered by the Board to the concerned consumers of such services, namely, the shippers. When such scales of rates in the light of a given set of conditions for offering handling services are fixed by the Board they cannot come into force unless such scales of rates and the set of conditions for offering such services get prior sanction of the Central Government as enjoined by Section 52 of the Act. So far as Section 53 is concerned, it confers power on the Board in special cases to give exemption or remission from such fixed and current rates as may have received prior sanction of the Central Government under Section 52 meaning thereby that once the Central Government has sanctioned rates and conditions under which such rates are to be imposed by a Board as laid down by Sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by small engine on the narrow gauge railway line. Handling of ore from the plots to the ships was done entirely by the Port authorities at their own cost for which they used to charge handling charges at ₹ 35/- per M.T. The operation consisted principally of three activities noted earlier. It was this system of transporting of manganese ore within the precincts of the Port that formed the basis for fixation of the rate of handling charges at ₹ 35/- per M.T. of manganese ore. This rate and the conditions under which handling services were then offered by the Board as already noticed were duly sanctioned by the Central Government under Section 52 of the Act. Despite the continuance of this system of handling services offered by the Board from 1st January 1984, a representation was made to the Board in the closing months of 1984 by the shippers of the manganese ore to the effect that this consolidated rate of handling charges of ₹ 35/- per M.T. of manganese ore was excessive as for unloading operation from the wagons, Dock Labour was being engaged and that in the process of exporting manganese ore at the lowest economic cost some of the exporters started bringing man ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from the skips to the ship's holding utilising the Port Labour. The aforesaid remitted rate of handling charges continued upto middle of 1986 when the impugned circular and the Resolution saw the light of the day. It is necessary to have a look at these circulars for appreciating their correct scope and ambit. The Traffic Manager of the appellant-Port by circular dated 19th May 1986 informed all concerned that a new system of handling manganese ore will be introduced by the appellant-Trust. It recited that under revised system, the stocked ore will be transported to the wharf by employment by the shippers of dumpers and loaders and loading with net slings dispensing with the existing narrow gauge system. This new system was to come into force after completion of loading of manganese ore on the expected vessel on or around 20th May 1986 and the manganese ore shippers were requested to note that narrow gauge system would not be available thereafter. This was followed by another circular dated 10th June 1986 issued by the Traffic Manager of the appellant-Trust notifying that a provisional consolidated handling charges of ₹ 30/- per M.T. for handling export of manganese ore ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... harges of ₹ 30/- per M.T. only for handling export of Manganese Ore etc. in the new system communicated vide its office circular cited, was the final rate. A conjoint reading of the circulars dated 19th May 1986, 10th June 1986 and 18th July 1986 and the Resolution dated 26th June 1986 leaves no room for doubt that from 21st of May 1986 entirely a new system for handling the manganese ore at the Port came into existence and in that light a new handling rate for manganese ore was being fixed by the Board. Once that happened Section 52 of the Act directly got attracted because the scale of rates at ₹ 30/- per M.T. having a direct nexus with the statement of new conditions for offering handling services by the Board was sought to be got implemented by the Board. Hence prior sanction of the Central Government became a must for such new impost. The submission of Shri Bobde, learned senior counsel for the appellants that even at this stage the Board sought to give a remission from the existing sanctioned scale of rates, that is, ₹ 35/- per M.T. as was current from 1st January 1984, cannot be accepted for the simple reason that the Board had already given remission of &# ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oundation of handling-services- infrastructure necessarily would assume the form of a new scale of rates. Shri Bobde's submission flies in the face of the express recitals found in the impugned circulars of 1986 in the light of which the impugned Resolution of the Board dated 26th June 1986 as passed. The scope and ambit of the Resolution of 26th June 1986 can be better highlighted as under: When the effective rate of handling charges was ₹ 30/- per M.T. prior to May 1986, the shippers were given facility to carry their load of dumped manganese ore from plots to wharf by utilising narrow gauge railway line belonging to the Port authorities. This facility was made available by the Board at its own cost. If value of this infrastructural facility for carrying dumped ore from plots to wharf which was at a distance of 200 meters to 1500 meters f the concerned plots, is approximately taken at ₹ 6/- per M.T., the burden of handling charges at the aforesaid rate would work out as under: Total burden of handling charges to be borne by the shippers would then be ₹ 30/- per M.T. Out of this amount ₹ 6/- per M.T. would be spent by the Board for providing the fac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d scales of rates of handling charges in the light of the new system of handling services introduced from May 1986 also sanctioned by the Central Government. We, therefore, find that the Division Bench of the High Court was justified in taking the view that the imugned Resolution dated 26th June 1986 seeking to bring into effect new rates of handling charges in the light of entirely new system of services then offered by the Board required prior sanction of the Central Government under Section 52 of the Act and could not be treated to be representing a scheme of remission as envisaged by Section 53 of the Act. Point No. 1 is answered accordingly. So far as this grievance of the writ petitioners is concerned, the learned Single Judge took the view that it was not for the court to go into the minutest details about the value of the services rendered by the Board and its exact co-relation with the rate of the handling charges sought to be recovered by the Board for offering these services. Shri Bobde, learned senior counsel for the appellants, was right when he contended that if it was felt by the Court that highly disputed questions of fact arose for its decision the writ petitione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... directions in this connection which would be binding on the appellant-Board. In short the question whether the scales of handling charges sought to be levied from the respondents for handling their manganese ore during the relevant period between 20th May 1986 and 12th February 1992 were just, fair and legal or not was justifiably left by the High Court to be decided by the Central Government instead of deciding it itself. Point No. 2 is answered accordingly. In this connection, it was vehemently urged by learned senior counsel Shri Bobde for the appellants that the Division Bench in the impugned judgment had wrongly assumed that once it was held that the impugned scale of rates sought to be introduced by the Board as per its Resolution dated 26th June 1986 was ineffective in the absence of prior sanction from the Central Government under Section 52 of the Act, there was a hiatus or a vacuum during the period between 20th May 1986 and 12th February 1992 and during that time there was no effective scale of handling charges at all which could have been charged by the Board from the concerned shippers of manganese ore. To that extent Shri Bobde's contention is well sustained. Whi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lf to hold that view. The said finding of the High Court is, therefore, set aside. Point No. 3 is answered accordingly. This takes us to consideration of the last point for determination. Shri Bobde, learned senior counsel for the appellants was right when he contended that there is no question of invocation of principles of natural justice or hearing the affected parties when legislative action is brought on the anvil of scrutiny or for that matter even an action of a delegated legislative authority is brought in challenge. It is axiomatic that a legislative exercise or exercise by a subordinate legislative agency imposing any tax or fee or charges would not require the affected parties to be heard before such charges or impost are levied. But this argument of Shri Bobde may be relevant at the stage of Section 52 of the Act wherein the scales of rates and statements of conditions framed by the Board are put up for prior sanction of the Central Government. However the said situation would not prevail when a grievance is made by the concerned aggrieved parties who submit that the sanctioned scales of rates which are prevalent and operative require modification or cancellation in pu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thereafter if the Central Government thinks it fit to make appropriate modification or cancellation of the settled and sanctioned scale of rates of handling charges as leviable by the concerned Boards it can proceed under Sections 52 and 54 of the Act calling upon the Board to effect such modifications or cancellations and in the process it has t consider the objections or suggestions of the concerned Boards as laid down by the proviso to sub- section (2) of Section 54. If before effecting such cancellations or modifications in the scale of rates the concerned Boards have to be heard, if found necessary, or their objections are to be considered there is no reason why the aggrieved parties who move the Central Government invoking its powers under Section 54(1) should be treated as total strangers whose objections should not be considered by the Central Government. Of course it has to be left to the Central Government as to how to consider such objections. But it cannot be said that if a competent court gives a direction in an appropriate case to the Central Government to give notice to the objectors, call for their objections and to consider the same such a direction would be dehor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
