9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 1151X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Vijayakumar, ASG Of India. JUDGMENT DR. A.K. JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J. The petitioners in WP(C) No.7435 of 2020 are the appellants herein aggrieved by the judgment dated 11.03.2020 of a learned Single Judge, who dismissed their Writ Petition. 2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of this Writ appeal are as follows: The appellants had impugned a Public Notice No.5/2020 dated 03.02.2020, as well as Exts.P3 toP5 communications issued to them by the 3rd respondent, purportedly based on the said Public Notice, as illegal and violative of their fundamental rights under the Constitution of India. The appellants are an Association of Container Shipping Lines, and Individual Shipping Lines, who render services of carriage of goods ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the consignee or the holder of the bill of lading all of whom came within the definition of merchant as defined in the bill of lading. Their apprehension was fortified when they received Exts.P2 to P5 communications that gave the impression that the 3rd respondent had interpreted the Public Notice as one that mandated that persons like the appellants could not thereafter collect handling charges over and above the terminal handling charges that were prescribed by the Indian Port in accordance with the scale of rates prescribed under the Major Port Trust Act. 4. The learned Single Judge, who considered the Writ Petition, found that the Public Notice that was impugned did not suffer from the vice of an unauthorised delegation of power, an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... WP(C).Nos. 2914 of 2021 and 3081 of 2021 where, while interpreting a similar Public Notice issued by the Customs Authorities in Bombay, and the communications similar to Exts.P2 to P5 that were issued in the wake of said Public Notice, the High Court found that the communications of the 3rd and 4th respondents therein, that gave the impression that the impugned Public Notices were mandatory, and were not concerned with contracts such as CYCY, FIFO etc were contrary to the stand taken by the notice-issuing respondents in those cases, and proceeded to set aside the said communications as contrary to the Public Notice. 6. Per contra, it is the submission of the learned Standing counsel for the respondents herein that the challenge to Ext.P1 P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch a power, that has the potential to interfere with the freedom of contract between parties, cannot be inferred from the terms of a Public Notice. It is in this respect that we find Ext.P2 to P5 communications to be legally flawed and contrary to Ext.P1 Public Notice. We, therefore, set aside Ext.P2 to P5 communications issued by the 3rd respondent and hold that Ext.P1 Public Notice shall not be interpreted by the 2nd and 3rd respondents or any person acting under them, in a manner that interferes with the terms of any private contract entered into between the shipping lines, and the shipper/recipient of the goods carried under a bill of lading. The Writ Appeal is thus allowed as above, by leaving open the question as regards the authority ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
