TMI Blog1960 (2) TMI 78X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iard, and Sarvashri A. M. Kothandarama Reddi, J. R. Nayak, C. K. Duraivelan and B. Ramalinga Reddi dissented. Resolved also that Mr. A. R. Liddiard, Shri Jasjit Singh or his nominee and Sri U. S. A. Ghaffoor, Officiating Traffic Manager, to reexamine item (ii) in paragraph 1 above and report early what modifications are required. The petitioner in W. P. No. 1224 of 1959 is a clearing and shipping agent, carrying on business in Madras and holding a licence for acting as such from the Collector of Customs at Madras. He is also the secretary of the Madras Clearing and Shipping Agents' Association at Madras. The petitioner in W. P. No. 4 of 1960 is a merchant and exporter of hides and skins, carrying on business in Madras. To understand the contentions of the parties, it is necessary at the outset to mention the facts and circumstances which led up to the passing of the. above resolution. 2. The Madras Harbour was constructed in or about 1886. In that year, an Act known as the Harbour Trust Act was passed, because it was considered necessary that there should be in existence a body of persons welt acquainted with the affairs of the Harbour, in whom may be vested all po ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dertake the following services: (a) landing, shipping or transshipping passengers and goods between vessels in the port and the wharves, piers, quays or docks in possession of the Board; (b) receiving, removing, shifting, transporting, storing or delivering goods brought within the Board's premises; (c) carrying passengers by rail, tramway or otherwise within the limits of the port, subject to such restrictions and conditions as the. Central Government may see fit to impose; and (d) receiving and delivering, transporting and booking and dispatching goods originating in the vessels in the port and intended for carriage by the neighboring railways, or vice versa, as a railway company or administration under the Indian Railways Act, 1890; (2) The Board shall, if so required by any owner, perform in respect of goods all or any of the services mentioned in Clauses (a), (b) and (d) of sub-section (1), provided that the Board shall not be bound to perform any service which it has relinquished under the provisions of Clause (a) of subsection (1) of Section 41-A (3) The Board shall, if required, take charge of the goods for the purpose of performing the ser ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and leading from the quayside to the ship is done by stevedores under arrangements with shipowners. Import cargo is taken charge of by the Port Trust at the quayside and shifted to the storage point and deliveries are effected by the Port Trust to the consignee. For the import cargo taken charge of at the quayside, the Port Trust issues receipts and undertakes responsibility for storing the goods and delivering them to the consignee. To carry out this work, the Port Trust maintains a large labour force. With reference to the export cargo, till now, the Port Trust has not handled it. The shippers engage forwarding agents, that is, clearing and shipping agents, who are licensed by the Collector of Customs. One of the functions of these agents is to attend to customs formalities. It cannot be denied that the resolution of the Board, which is the subject matter of these petitions, prevents the clearing and forwarding agents from handling the cargo. 5. The action of the Board was impeached on several grounds. But the main grounds were (i) that the Port Trust had no jurisdiction, to exercise a monopoly in the matter of rendering their services in the handling of export cargo, which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from which the goods have been landed or transhipped. In the face of these specific provisions, it is impossible to hold that the Board has no power to undertake the services which are being performed by the forwarding and clearing agents, so far as the operations within the premises of the Port are concerned. Of course, these provisions will not confer power on the Board to insist on the owners bringing their goods to the harbour in vehicles owned or employed by them. The Board will not have the power to insist that the Board alone should carry out the customs formalities for such remuneration as they may fix. But within the Port's premises, the Board, in our opinion, has every power to undertake the services mentioned in Clauses (a) to (d) of Section 39(1) of the Act 7. The next question is whether the Board, besides undertaking the aforesaid services, can also exclude other persons or bodies from performing these services. It will, of course, be in the discretion of the Board to permit other persons also to carry on these operations, or, as it has done by the impugned resolution, undertake the conduct of these Operations only in respect of certain goods. We see nothin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... within a radius of twelve miles from the docks, and that no fish transported by the vehicle should be transferred directly or indirectly to or from any other road vehicle for conveyance to any other place beyond a radius of twelve miles from the fish docks. It was held by the House of Lords that the company were not entitled to impose those conditions upon the removal of fish from their premises, for, the marketing of fish, when landed, must be regarded as part of the process of shipping and unshipping within the meaning of Section 33 of the Act and that access to the docks must include access with such a vehicle as the party seeking access deems necessary, subject to the power of the company under Section 83 to regulate such access by means of a valid and operative by-law. From the speeches of the noble Lords, it is abundantly clear that their decision turned almost entirely on the provisions of Section 33 of the Act. The decision is valuable only for this, namely, that, in their opinion, the words shipping and unshipping in Section 33 of the Act should not be confined to the narrow operation of lifting goods from the quay to the ship or from the ship to the quay, and that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mpany to require any owner, agent, master, consignee Or other person having charge of any vessel lighter or river craft to employ hire or use any such steamer tug lighter or other, ship or boat. In both the decisions, the earlier decision of the House of Lords in Perth General Station Committee v. Ross, 1897 A.C. 479 was distinguished. There, it was held that a railway company have the right of excluding from their stations all persons except those using or desirous of using the railway and may impose upon the rest of the public any terms which they think proper as the condition of admittance. 9. It will be seen that, in both the cases cited by Mr. Gopalaswami Aiyangar, the decision depended upon the construction of particular provisions of the relevant Acts. These two decisions cannot apply to the present case, because there is no provision in the Madras Port Trust Act, corresponding to Section 33 of the Harbours, Docks and Piers Clauses Act, 1847. It follows that no one can claim as of right access to the premises of the harbour or the port to carry on any business, 10. Far from there being anything in the provisions of the Madras Port Trust Act, which confers an absol ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the company to appoint their own meters and weighers, and by the general Act (Sections 81 and 82), where under the special Act tie undertakers shall have the appointment of meters and weighers, they may licence a sufficient number of persons to be meters and weighers within the limits of the deck, and fix reasonable rates or remuneration to be paid to them, and) none but the licensed meters and weighers are to be employed to weigh goods in the dock. If it had been intended to limit the class of persons who might remove cargo to persons employed by the company only, one would have expected to find similar visions with respect to those persons. 12. Section 95(4) of the Madras Port Trust Act, we have seen, expressly empowers the Board) to frame a by-law for the exclusive conduct of the operations of reception, porterage, storage and removal of goods brought within its premises by the Board or persons employed by the Board. That provision is a statutory recognition of the object as-being within the scope of the Act. This rule of interpretation was enunciated by Lord MacDermott in Earl Fitzwilliam's Wentworth Estates Co., v. Minister of Housing and Local Government, 1952 A.C. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Madras Harbour and Port. The Sea Customs Act is an Act relating to the levy of sea customs duty. The scope of this Act is so entirely different from the scope of the Madras Port Trust Act that the provisions of one Act cannot be called in aid of the construction of the provisions of the other Act. Sections 11, 14, 15 and 16 of the Sea Customs Act, which provide for appointment of wharves and warehouses, are intended for affording the customs authority, facilities to collect customs dues. Section 198 imposes on the owners of goods the expense incidental to compliance with customs-law. Section 202(1) was particularly relied on by the petitioner's learned Counsel, ' That only lays down that no person shall act as an agent for the transaction of any business relating to the entrance or clearance of any vessel or the import or export of goods or baggage in any customs house, unless such' person holds a licence granted in this behalf in accordance with the rules made under Sub-section (2). These agents, as the marginal note indicates, are merely customs house agents. The impugned resolution does not in any way conflict 'with any of the provisions of the Sea Customs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of the State under Article 12, because it would be a local authority. Article 367 of the Constitution provides that the General Clauses Act, 1897, shall apply for the interpretation of the Constitution. So, it is permissible to go to that Act for a definition of local authority. In Section 3(31) Local Authority is thus defined : Local authority shall mean a municipal committee, District Board, body or port commissioners or other authority legally entitled to, or entrusted by the Government with, the control or management of a municipal or local fund. We are clearly of opinion that the resolution in question cannot be impugned on the basis of any of the provisions of the Constitution of India, This would be so, as regards both the petitioners, that is, the shipping agent as well as the owner of the goods. 15. A minor point was sought to be raised by Mr. Gopalaswami Aiyangar, learned counsel for the petitioners, based on Section 23-A of the Madras Port Trust Act. That section provides that no trustee shall vote on or take part in the discussion of any question coming up for consideration at a meeting of the Board if the question is one in which he has any direct or in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
