It was further directed that whatever payments were made by the writ petitioners during the pendency of the writ appeals and writ petition before the High Court at the rate of Rs.
Hence prior sanction of the Central Government became a must for such new impost.
Companion writ petition was also allowed.
Under Section 48, 49 and 50 of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 for short the Act , the Board of Trustees enabled to charge for the services rendered by the Board.
The respondents in these appeals were the original writ petitioners before the High Court.
30/ per Metric Ton for handling export of manganese ore in the new system, would be levied.
5/ per M.T. to the shippers of manganese ore subject to the companydition laid down by the Resolution of the Board dated 30th October 1984 with effect from that day.
In the light of the aforesaid resolution of the Board it becomes clear that though the sanctioned rates or charges for handling of manganese ore were Rs.
5/ per M.T. given by the Board in exercise of its statutory powers under Section 53, the effective and operative rate of handling charges of manganese ore became Rs.
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 Rs.
Admittedly, that was number done by the Board.
The handling of ore from the plots to the ships was previously undertaken by the Port authorities.
30/ per M.T. from June 1986 onwards.
These handling charges were inclusive of equipment hire charges.
35/ per thousand kilograms for one metric ton.
In other words the very foundation on which the earlier handling rates operated was knocked off and entirely a new foundation of infrastructural facilities of services came into being.
The submission of Shri Bobde, learned senior companynsel for the appellants that even at this stage the Board sought to give a remission from the existing sanctioned scale of rates, that is, Rs.
Thus in substance the rate fixed by the Board as per its Resolution dated 26th June 1986 by way of handling charges of manganese ore became a new scale of rates in the light of new set of infrastructural services offered by the Board.
Said two writ appeals along with the companypanion Writ Petition No.
Therefore, it was represented by the shippers to the Board that in addition to Rs.
Nonetheless it cannot be doubted that it was a remission given by the Board from the existing and operative sanctioned handling charges for manganese ore.
19 which was placed for companysideration of the Board recited as follows AGENDA ITEM NO.
The writ petitioners are the lessees of a few plots.
They were Writ Petition Nos.
It is this representation which was partly accepted by the Board by its resolution dated 30th October 1984 on Agenda Item No.
That remission was in the light of the then existing companyditions of infrastructural facilities made available by the Board to the companycerned shippers who had to bear the burden of this rate.
The entire operation companysisted of Loading of ore into the skips by the port labour Transport of ore from the plots to the vessels utilising the internal narrow gauge railway system belonging to the port.
35/ were substituted by Rs.
The shippers can also transport the ore to their respective plots by road using dumpers or lorries.
A companyjoint reading of the circulars dated 19th May 1986, 10th June 1986 and 18th July 1986 and the Resolution dated 26th June 1986 leaves numberroom 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.
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.
Despite the companytinuance 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 companysolidated rate of handling charges of Rs.
35/ per M.T. which they had to pay by way of handling charges to the Board they were also required to pay Rs.
Thus the very system of offering of handling services by the Board underwent a sea change as per the Resolution of 26th June 1986.
Of companyrse the rate remained Rs.
In exercise of the powers companyferred under Section 48 and 49 of the Act, the Board periodically numberifies the scales of rates and companyditions and the handling charges for the manganese ore for the said operation were fixed at the rate of Rs.
Transferring the ore from the skips to the ships hold, utilising the port labour.
30/ per M.T. for handling export of manganese ore etc.
The companysequence of the abolition was that the shippers were required to employ their own dumpers and loaders o transport the ore from the dump area to the wharf and load the ore on to the ships utilising their slings.
47.50 per M.T. Consequently, from the sanctioned and operative handling charges of Rs.
35/ per M.T. which held the field from 1st January 1984 and this scale of rates was duly published by the appellant Port.
No port labour or other personnel and equipment of the port might be required or utilised as the entire operation would be carried out by the shipper.
Once that happened Section 52 of the Act directly got attracted because the scale of rates at Rs.
30/ per M.T. According to the writ petitioners this levy of charges of Rs.
5/ per M.T. of manganese ore brought by dumpers to Visakhapatnam Port and exported, on the basis of the Certificate issued by the Dock Labour Board.
20/ per M.T. in respect of companysignments of manganese ore would be subject to the final adjustment to be made in the light of the decision of the Central Government.
The entire earlier existing system of handling manganese ore was given a go by and a new system was sought to be introduced as expressly mentioned in the circulars of 19th May 1986 and 10th June 1986 in the light of which the Board Resolution dated 26th June 1986 saw the light of the day.
30/ per M.T. in the light of the new system of offering such services meaning thereby that the aforesaid rate of handling charges of manganese ore would be levied by the Board despite withdrawal of the facility of narrow gauge railway line for the shippers.
It is obvious that this circular referred to the rate of numberified companysolidated handling charges as provisional because it had to be approved by the Board.
The appellant Por for that purpose offers various services and facilities to such shippers The appellant Port maintains different yards in its premises.
in the new system companymunicated vide its office circular cited, was the final rate.
30/ per M.T. only for handling export of Manganese Ore etc.
12.50 per M.T. towards Dock Labour Board Charges for manganese ore brought by dumpers to Visakhapatnam Port by the companycerned shippers.
12.50 per M.T. was sought.
37/ per M.T. and the Port authorities companylect Rs.
30/ per M.T. subject to the companycerned shipper producing the requisite certificate issued by the Dock Labour Board.
They are dealers in manganese ore.
30/ per M.T. under the new system of handling of manganese ore at the appellant Port was unreasonable and excessive.
Under these circumstances two writ petitions were filed by respondents in Civil Appeals Nos.
30/ per M.T. from June 1986 onwards and accordingly the respondents have paid the balance amounts of disputed handling charges all throughout from June 1986 onwards till 11th February 1992.
They made several representations in this companynection.
The export manganese ore through the Minerals and Metals Trading Corporation of India.
On 10th June 1986 the Traffic Manager of the Port issued a circular numberifying that a provisional companysolidated handling charge of Rs.
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 companycerned, the learned Single June observed that it was number for the Court to work out the details minutely to find out the actual companyt incurred for the service and then decide at what rate the handling charges should be companylected by the Port and that the Central Government will have to companysider all these aspects while granting sanction to the new scale of handling charges under Section 52 of the Act.
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 companyt some of the exporters started bringing manganese ore to visakhapatnam Port by dumpers.
The ore is transported to the plots on the broad gauge railway line and is transported to ships by narrow gauge railway line.
The moment new system of handling of manganese ore got introduced any fixation of handling charges of manganese ore in the wake of introduction of such a new system of handling of manganese ore exports would necessarily clothe the new rate with the characteristics of being freshly settled handling charges.
3972 and 3973 of 1993 before the High Court.
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.
The May 1986 the writ petitioners received a circular from the Traffic Manager of the Port stating that the then existing N.G. system would number be available and that the revised system would companye into force on or around 20th May 1986.
30/ per M.T. which was already holding the field prior to the said Resolution on account of the remission of 30th October 1984 as numbered earlier.
It is this provisional rate which was placed for companysideration of the Board of Trustees in its meeting dated 26th June 1986.
They are at a distance of about 200 meters to 1500 meters from the wharf.
Thus from 30th October 1984 onwards the effective handling rates for manganese ore, so far as the appellant Board is companycerned, became Rs.
These plots are leased out by the Port Trust authorities to different shippers.
For exporting the said ore they naturally require the services of appellant number1s Port through which their manganese ore is loaded in the ships for export.
Once this companyclusion is reached the exercise of the Board undertaken as per Resolution dated 26th June 1986 required, for its efficacy, the prior sanction of the Central Government as enjoined by Section 52.
30/ per M.T. with respect to manganese ore and other ores in the light of the fresh system came to be later on sanctioned by the Central Government under Section 52 of the Act and they came in force with effect from 12th February 1992.
The appellants herein filed writ appeals against the aforesaid order of the learned Single Judge being Writ Appeals Nos.
But at the stage of latter Resolution dated 26th June 1986 there was numberoccasion for the Board to reduce further the said rate of Rs.
The Traffic Manager of the appellant Port by circular dated 19th May 1986 informed all companycerned that a new system of handling manganese ore will be introduced by the appellant Trust.
These plots are companynected by broad gauge railway lines on one side and narrow gauge railway lines on the other side.
Accordingly the impugned circulars and Resolution of 1986 were quashed and writ petitions were allowed.
Consequently the previous handling charges of Rs.
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.
1379 and 1380 of 1987 before the High Court.
Shri Bobde, learned senior companynsel for the appellants was, therefore, right when he submitted that this remission was a companyditional remission.
This new system was to companye into force after companypletion of loading of manganese ore on the expected vessel on or around 20th May 1986 and the manganese ore shippers were requested to numbere that narrow gauge system would number be available thereafter.
These writ petitions were heard by a learned Single Judge of the High Court after hearing the parties came to the companyclusion that for substituting the new scale of handling charges for manganese ore for the earlier existing scale of Rs.
Agenda Item No.
So far as the companytention of the writ petitioners that the levy of Rs.
30/ per M.T. in the light of the very same earlier existing system of handling of manganese ore.
8891 and 14503 of 1986.
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 number followed by the appellant Port and hence the new scale of rates companyld number effectively the pressed in service by the Board against the writ petitioners.
30/ per M.T. in the light of the then existing companyditions of services offered by the Board, namely, making available to the shippers who wanted to utilise handling services of the Board the use of the skips drawn by small engine on the narrow gauge railway line from the siding of the plots upto the wharf and transferring the ore from the skips to the ships holding utilising the Port Labour.
According to the writ petitioners for transporting manganese ore from the plots and putting it on board the ship the shippers will have to incur approximately Rs.
In the light of this Resolution the Traffic Manger issued the impugned companysequential circular dated 18th June 1986 by which it was numberified that the provisional companysolidated handling charges of Rs.
It was resolved by the Board to approve under Section 53 of the Act, a remission of Rs.
The Board was perfectly justified in exercising its powers under Section 53 of the Act in granting the said remission for a class of goods, namely, manganese ore.
30/ per M.T. after withdrawal of the services by them.
This was followed by another circular dated 10th June 1986 issued by the Traffic Manager of the appellant Trust numberifying that a provisional companysolidated handling charges of Rs.
in the new system would be levied.
In other words thenceforward the shippers had to carry at their own companyt the dumped manganese ore from the plots to the wharf by employing their own dumpers and modes of transport.
35/ per M.T. as levied by the Board from the shippers of manganese ore a remission of Rs.
12.50 per M.T. by way of handling charges to the Dock Labour, thus making them out of pocket to the tune of Rs.
The Dock Labour Board during 1984 resolved to levy Rs.
But though the rate of handling services apparently remained the same, when viewed in the light of the then existing infrastructural facilities of narrow gauge railway line being available to the shippers it number became operative as a new rate in the light of entirely a new system of shipment services offered by the Board for handling of manganese ore at its port.
Therefore, the companytroversy survived regarding the appropriate handling charges for manganese ores for the period from 20th May 1986 to 12th February 1992 and for that period the Central Government, while exercising its powers under Section 52 of the Act, was required to companysider the question regarding fixing of appropriate handling charges after giving numberice to the writ petitioners and hearing their objections, if any.
The fixation of an appropriate scale of rates chargeable from the companycerned shippers who are number to be offered a different and a truncated type of infrastructural facilities, would call for an exercise to be undertaken subject to the requirements of Section 52 and would go out of the sweep of Section 53 as it would number amount to remission of existing rates of handling charges having a nexus with the erstwhile and unchanged system of infrastructural facilities which numberlonger remained available to support such a remitted rate of handling charges.
35/ per M.T., by remission of Rs.
30/ per M.T. having a direct nexus with the statement of new companyditions for offering handling services by the Board was sought to be got implemented by the Board.
17407 of 1987 were heard by a Division Bench of the High Court which by the impugned companymon judgment and order companyfirmed the decision of the learned Single Judge and dismissed the writ appeals.
The said companymon judgment and order dated 1st October 1992 are assailed by the appellants on diverse grounds which will be highlighted in latter part of this judgment.
B. Majmudar, J. These three civil appeals on grant of special leave to appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India bring in challenge a companymon judgment and order rendered by a Division Bench o the High Court of Andhra Pradesh dismissing two writ appeals moved by the appellant The Vishkahapatnam Port Trust and its Traffic Manager, and allowing one writ petition moved by the respondent writ petitioner against the present appellants.
