TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 1980X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4 in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 111 of the said Act. Thereafter the Government of India, in supersession of the said Land Policy of 2004, issued Land Policy for Major Ports - 2010 for implementation by all Major Ports and Ennore Port Limited. Thereafter the Government of India had issued the Policy Guidelines for the land management by Major Ports 2014. However, the Indian Port Association, an Apex Body of Major Ports having highlighted certain difficulties and suggested some changes, the Ministry had constituted a Two-Member Committee to examine the suggestions and furnish a report. Based on the report, the revised guidelines were framed and issued under Section 111 of the said Act, vide communication dated 17.7.2015. The said Policies inter alia contained the directions/guidelines to be followed by the Port Trusts with regard to the Land Use Plan, Land Allotment Policy, Renewal of Existing Leases, determination of market value of port land and the scale of rates etc. The upshot of the discussions and findings may be concluded as under:- (i) The Land Policies of 2010 and 2014 in respect of the Port lands issued by the Central Government under Section 111 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he petitions stand partly allowed. - R/Special Civil Application Nos. 2535 of 2017, 6909 of 2018, 2607 of 2012, 673 of 2014, 13371 of 2013, 5218 of 2014, 5219 of 2014, 5222 of 2014, 5223 of 2014, 5224 of 2014, 16225 of 2013, 16530 of 2013 And Others. - - - Dated:- 10-5-2019 - R/Special Civil Application Nos. 13409 of 2014, 2905 of 2015, 9342 of 2015, 372 of 2016, 10306 of 2015, 10983 of 2015, 10984 of 2015, 11497 of 2015, 2536 of 2017, 2537 of 2017, 2538 of 2017, 8538 of 2016, 10611 of 2016, 10730 of 2016, 10891 of 2016 and 10892 of 2016 HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE BELA M. TRIVEDI MR SN SOPARKAR, SR. ADVOCATE WITH MR DHAVAL SHAH (2354) for the Petitioner(s) (in SCA Nos. 2535/2017, 2536/2017, 2537/2017 2538/2017 MR SN SOPARKAR, SR. ADVOCATE for NANAVATI ASSOCIATES for the Petitioner(s) (in SCA Nos. 2607/2012 673/2014) MR SN SOPARKAR, SR. ADVOCATE WITH MR AMAR BHATT for the Petitioner(s) (in SCA Nos. 13371/2013 8538/2016) MRS SANGEETA PAHWA, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) (in SCA Nos. 5218/2014, 5219/2014, 5222, 5223/2014, 5224/2014, 10983/2015 and 10984/2015) MR MIHIR THAKORE, SR. ADVOCATE WITH MR SALIL THAKORE for the Petitioner(s) (in SCA No. 162 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1 M/s. IMC Limited (earlier known as United Storage Tanks Terminals Ltd. - USTTL) is a company incorporated under the provisions contained in the Companies Act, 1953. The USTTL was wholly owned subsidiary of the petitioner No. 1 Company and was amalgamated into the petitioner No. 1 Company by a Scheme of Amalgamation approved by the Calcutta High Court by its order dated 7.7.2010. The petitioner No. 2 is the Managing Director of the petitioner No. 1 and is also a shareholder thereof. 3.2. The petitioner No. 1 is engaged in the business of port based liquid bulk terminal operations and providing storage tank farm and terminalling services. The respondent No. 2 is the Tariff Authority of Major Ports (hereinafter referred to as TAMP ), the authority constituted under the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as said Act ) exercising the powers and discharging functions inter alia with respect to the fixation of tariff for major ports including the respondent No. 3 KPT. The respondent No. 3 is one of the Major Port Trusts in whose premises the petitioner No. 1 is operating a common user liquid bulk tank farms. The petitioner No. 1 and its associate company JRE Tank ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eir aftereffects in the region, the rates proposed by the respondent No. 3 were not accepted by the respondent No. 2 TAMP and were not implemented during the period from 1999 till 2004. In 2005, the Government issued guidelines that the Port Trusts should charge land premium upfront based on the tender along with nominal rent of Re. 1/-. 3.6. In the year 2005, the respondent No. 3 KPT issued a tender inviting bids for allotment of plots (adjacent to the LPG Project of OIC) for construction of liquid storage tanks for handling liquid cargo at Kandla on a 30 year lease. In the said tender the respondent KPT had changed the payment model from a premium-cum-lease rent structure followed earlier to single lump sum consideration in the form of a higher premium and token Re. 1/- lease structure. However, the said tender of 2005 was subsequently cancelled by the KPT in or around December 2010. 3.7. In the meantime, the Land Policy Guidelines - 2010 was issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Shipping, in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 111 of the the said Act, in supersession of the earlier Land Policy for Major Ports - 2004, for implementation by all Major Port ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Rs. 30/- per sq. mtrs., for the period from July 1999 to December, 2003, Rs. 39/- per sq. mtrs., for the period from January 2004 to December 31, 2008 and Rs. 80.40/- per sq. mtrs., for the period from January 1, 2009 to December 31, 2013. The lease rentals were to bear an escalation of 5% (compoundable) per annum for the period from July 1999 to February 24, 2004 and at 2% thereafter. The respondent KPT thereafter issued a demand notice dated 20.5.2013 to the petitioner No. 1 (USTTL) in respect of the lease and called upon the USTTL to make payment of arrears of lease rent effective from 1999 relying upon 2011 TAMP order. The petitioner No. 1, therefore, vide letter dated 25.6.2013 replied to the said demand notice stating inter alia that the respondent KPT did not have any power to refix the base rent with retrospective effect. Thereafter, certain correspondences ensued between the parties. 3.12. In the year 2014, the respondent No. 1 issued the policy guidelines for Land Management by Major Ports revising the earlier Policy of 2010. The Clause 18 thereof provided for the manner and method of determination of market value of Port lands. Keeping in mind the said guidelines ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... quid tank farm business. According to the petitioners, the petitioner No. 1 made payment under protest of Rs. 51,34,536/- at the rate of Rs. 90.55 per sq. mtrs. 3.14. According to the petitioner it had already informed the KPT vide its letter dated 8.9.2010 that pursuant to the order dated 14.6.2010 of the High Court of Kolkatta, USTTL was amalgamated with the petitioner M/s. IMC Limited, and therefore, the name of the petitioner Company was required to be changed in the KPT's records. However, the KPT vide letter dated 17.10.2013 had called upon the petitioner to remit the outstanding dues of the USTTL, stating that the land was allotted to USTTL and that it is not transferred in the name of M/s. IMC Limited as per the KPT's record. The KPT thereafter informed the petitioner by its letter dated 5.2.2016 that USTTL's change in name was not finalized due to non-payment of dues by USTTL and pending Court case (filed by the petitioner No. 1 in the year 2003 against the respondent KPT, in relation to the demand of premium made under the lease in question). The respondent KPT reiterated its stand and informed the petitioners that if the dues as per the demand notices for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4, by respondent No. 2 (2014 TAMP order); f) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to declare the unilateral change to the premium-cum-lease rent structure in the existing Leave of the petitioner, by respondent Nos. 2 and/or 3 as illegal; 4. The respondent KPT has resisted the petition being SCA No. 2535 of 2017 by filing affidavit-in-reply raising the contentions as stated herein below:- 4.1. The petition was not maintainable as the challenge to the orders of Tariff Authority was barred by delay, laches, acquiescence and estoppel. The petition invoking the extraordinary, prerogative and discretionary writ jurisdiction may not be entertained as the petition involved disputed questions of facts, which are required to be adjudicated by interpreting contractual obligations between the parties. 4.2. The petition at the instance of the present petitioner challenging the order of TAMP and the notices issued by the respondent KPT to the original allottee USTTL for the parcel of land in question was not maintainable. There was a huge outstanding amount payable by the allottee. 4.3. The respondent KPT vide its letter dated 27.10.1995 had informed the allottee USTTL that the parc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld not be finalized. 4.8. In the meantime, land policy for major ports, 2004 was issued by the Central Government under Section 111 of the said Act, which provided for revision of scale of rates every five years at the rate commensurate with the prevalent market value, by arriving at annual lease rent taking 6% of market value of the lands. For determining the market value of the lands, a Committee was constituted under the chairmanship of the Chairman, KPT, which Committee by its report recommended revision of rates. The said recommendation was placed in the meeting held from time to time and in the meeting of Board on 21.1.2006 it was observed that the revision pertaining to A, B, and D categories of the general land at Kandla be finalized after the receipt of actual upfront premium from the allotment of 17 plots to the respective highest bidders for construction of storage tanks at old Kandla and as per the prevailing guidelines issued by the Government of India on 8.3.2004. With a view to avoid duplication and multiple proposals to be made to TAMP it was decided to send a combined proposal for the subject lands i.e. the lands type A, B, C, D, and E after finalization of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from contending to the contrary. 4.12. The allottee was issued differential bills of rent with effect from July 1999, and escalation at the rate of 5% for the period of lease between 1994-1999, in the line with the approved scale of rates framed by the Tariff Authority in exercise of the statutory powers. The KPT being bound by the scale of rates framed under Section 49 of the Act is obliged to affect revised rates from such revised dates as provided in the scale of rates and accordingly the additional bills of lease rent were issued. The allottee was liable to pay the lease rent at a higher rate whenever the scheduled rates were revised upward by the competent authority which, owing to particular circumstances and calamities, was not revised periodically. The petitioner cannot take advantage of such facts and not pay the annual lease rent as per the statutory fixation. The revision of rates also could not be said to be having retrospective effect, inasmuch as the TAMP had affected the lease rentals for the relevant period for which there was no revision, being 6% of the market value at the end of every five years as required under the document of lease and the land policy. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1995 - 26.10.2025 (if from the date of LOA) 10/01/1996 to 09/01/2026 (30 years from date of possession ) 4. Status of lessee/allottee Term of lease has not commenced, as the lease deed has not been executed. 5. Name of Original lessee/allottee M/s. United Storage Tanks Terminal Ltd. 6. Nature of change/transfer Vide scheme of amalgamation approved by the Calcutta High Court dated 7.7.2010 M/s. Union Storage Tanks Terminals Ltd. was amalgamated with IMC. (Page 73) 7. Date of Application for transfer made to KPT. Vide letter dated 1/8.9.2010, IMC asked for change of name of lessee on records of KPT from M/s. United Storage and Tank Terminals Ltd. to IMC Ltd. (Page 267) 8. Response by KPT to application for transfer. Letter by Port of 17.10.2013, that the land had been allotted to M/s. United Storage and Tank Terminals, which has not been transferred to IMC, i.e. the petitioner, as per the records of KPT. (Page 269) 9. Original lease rent rate Rs. 11 per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 20. Issue of Renewal No clause for renewal and no reliefs sought SCA No. 2536 of 2017 Sr. No. Details 1. Petitioner IMC LTD 2. Lessee/Allottee Copy of Lease Deed/ Allotment Letter. Indenture of lease dated 20.8.2002 for the land admeasuring 19,479 sq.mtrs. (Page 90) 3. Duration of lease/holding 07.03.1986 to 06.03.2016 4. Status of lessee/allottee Unauthorized occupant since 07.03.2016 5. Name of original lessee/allottee M/s. United Storage Tanks Terminal Ltd. 6. Nature of change/transfer Vide scheme of amalgamation approved by the Calcutta High Court dated 7.7.2010 M/s. Union Storage Tanks Terminals Ltd. was amalgamated with IMC. (Page 73) 7. Date of Application for transfer made to KPT. Vide letter dated 1/8.9.2010, IMC asked for change of name of lessee on records of KPT from M/s. United Storage and Tank Terminals Ltd. to IMC ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... MC had challenged KPT s decision to cancel the 2005 tenders. (2011 2 GLH 283) IMC has made bid(s) for land(s) earmarked for tank farms (G1 category). 19. Nature of preliminary objections Transfer in breach of conditions of allotment letter is void and letter of allotment vests no right in USTTL in absence of execution of lease therefore no right is acquired by the transferee. 20. Issue of Renewal No clause for renewal in the lease deed and no reliefs seeking renewal sought in the petition. SCA No. 2538 of 2017 Sr. No. Details 1 Petitioner IMC LTD. 2 Lessee/Allottee Copy of Lease Deed/Allotment Letter Indenture of lease dated 17.09.1984 Wrt land admeasuring 9980.(Page 87) 3 Duration of lease/holding 23.6.1978 to 22.6.2008 4 Status of lessee/allottee Unauthorized occupant since 23.06.2008 5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Estate Officer under the PP Act due to Court Case filed by the above party. 18 Specific Facts: Undertaking filed by petitioner to pay revised ground rent WEF 23.6.2008 as may be fixed by the competent authority Pg. 102 D IMC had challenged KPT s decision to cancel the 2005 tenders. (2011 2 GLH 283) IMC has made bid(s) for land(s) earmarked for tank farms (G1 category) Pg. 440. 19 Nature of preliminary objections In absence of details of transfer provided by the petitioner, the right is reserved. 20 Issue of Renewal Clause of renewal in the lease deed and the renewal is sought vide the present petition. SCA No. 2537 of 2017 Sr. No. Details 1 Petitioner JRE TANK TERMINALS PVT LTD (a company) 2 Lessee/Allottee Copy of Lease Deed/ Allotment Letter Indenture of lease dated 21.8.2002 WRT land admeasuring 13,658 sq.mtrs. (Page 64) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of its use under order dated 13.11.2014 8. Setting aside the notices issued by KPT in relation to the demand of lease rent as per the orders of TAMP. 9. To declare that unilateral change to the premium cum lease rent structure as per existing lease deed to be illegal. (Page ...) 16 Relief Granted No interim relief. 17 Status of Public Premises Eviction Proceedings Not started due to proceedings pending before the High court of Gujarat since 2017. 18 Specific Facts: Transfer made by the partnership firm is in contravention of the terms of allotment. Group Company IMC had challenged KPT s decision to cancel the 2005 tenders. (2011 2 GLH 283) Group Company has made bid(s) for land(s) earmarked for tank farms (G1 category) Pg. 435. 19 Nature of preliminary objections Transfer in breach of conditions of allotment letter is void and therefore no (legal) right ensues unto the transferee company. 20 Issue of Renew ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 14 Breakup of amount due : (As per KPT's claim) 1994-1999 = Rs. 1,59,257/- 1999-2004 = Rs. 47,70,827/- 2004-2009 = Rs. 61,20,387/- 2009-2011 = Rs. 58,09,018/- 2011-2013 = Rs. 31,76,632/- 2014-2018 = Rs. 3,42,20,585/- * Amount payable towards transfer fees amounting to Rs. 1,07,36,710/ interest for delay payment have not been included. 15 Date of petition : 23.7.2013 16 Prayers A. To declare that respondents have no right or authority to demand lease rent from petitioner retrospectively from 1994 and to quash and set aside the order dated 25.3.2011 and demand notice dated 21.5.2013 and to restrain respondents from making any coercive recovery. (Page 10) 17 Relief Granted Impugned notices and letters by the Port qua recovery of tariff with retrospective effect only shall remain stayed vide Order dated 9.2.2015 passed in SCA No. 16225 of 2013. 18 Status of Public Premises Eviction Proceedings No proc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 10 Revised lease rent rate under 2011 TAMP order 1994-1999 = Rs. 11/- per sm/annum 1999-2004 = Rs. 41.4/- per s.m/ annum 5% escalation 2004-2009 = Rs. 53.4/- per s.m/ annum 2% escalation 2009-2011= Rs. 110.4/- per s.m/ annum 2% escalation 11 Revised lease rent under 2014 TAMP Order 2014: Rs. 905.17 * Rate escalation @ 2% every year from 2014. 12 Whether any change in category ? Category A in 2011 Category G1 in 2014. 13 Dues under 2014 TAMP Order: Retrospective/Pr Ospective Jan, 2014 Nov, 2014: = Rs. 3,42,20,585/- Nov, 2014 Dec, 2018: = Rs. 0.00/- 14 Breakup of amount due: (As per KPT's claim) 1994-1999 = Rs. 1,59,257/- 1999-2004 = Rs. 47,70,827/- 2004-2009 = Rs. 61,20,387/- 2009-2011 = Rs. 58,09,018/- 2011-2013 = Rs. 31,76,632/- 2014-2018 = Rs. 3,42,20,585/- * Amount payable towards transfer fees amounting to Rs. 1,07,36,710/ interest for delay payment have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... twhile allottee / lessee (as the transfer agreement have not been produced, the transfer date is not known) 5 Name of original lessee/allottee ABS Industries Ltd. 6 Nature of change/transfer Under Share Purchase Agreement s. * Petitioner seeks change on the premise of the change of name of the company @ pg. 62/63. 7 Date of Application for transfer made to KPT. NA 8 Response by KPT to application for transfer. Show cause notice dated 18.2.2014 as to why transfer effected without previous permission, and the copies of agreement of transfer called for.(Page 66) Reply by INEOS dated 29.4.2014 @ pg.67, however copies of the agreement not provided. 9 Original lease rent rate Rs. 11 per sq.mt. 10 Revised lease rent rate under 2011 Tamp Order: 1994-1999 = Rs. 11/- per sm/annum 1999-2004 = Rs. 30/- per s.m/ annum 5% escalation 2004-2009 = Rs. 39/- per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rights on the basis of lease. 21 Issue of Renewal NA SCA No. 13409 of 2014 Sr. No. Details 1 Petitioner Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. 2 Lessee/Allottee Copy of Lease Deed/Allotment Letter and Important terms/clauses Lease deed WRT parcel of land admeasuring 4,68,103 sq.mts issued in favour of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. on 30.5.2004. Lease deed WRT parcel of land admeasuring 15,602 sq.mts issued in favour of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Lease deed WRT parcel of land admeasuring 55,050 sq.mts issued in favour of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Lease deed WRT parcel of land admeasuring 1,16,774 sq.mts issued in favour of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Lease deed WRT parcel of land admeasuring 86,700 sq.mts issued in favour of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Letter of allotment WRT parcel of land admeasuring 10,430 sq.mts issued in favour of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Letter of allotment WRT parcel of land admeasuring 6,589 sq.mt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r sq. mtr/per annum in r/o land admg. 55050 sq. mtrs Rs. 0.90/- per sq.mtrs/per annum r/o land admg. 6589 sq. mtrs Rs. 2.70/- per sq.mtrs/per annum r/o land admg. 10430 sq. mtrs Rs. 3.60 per sq. mtrs/Per annum Rs. 11/- per sq. mtrs/per annum from 01/07/1994 in r/o land admg. 116774 sq. mtrs., 468103 sq. mtrs, 86700 sq. mtrs 15602 sq. mtrs. 10 Revised lease rent rate under TAMP order 2011 : All above lands in C1 Category 1994-1999= Rs. 24/- per sm/annum in r/o land admg. 671078 sq. mtrs 1994-1999= Rs. 11/- per sm/annum 19992004 = Rs. 30/per sm/ annum 2% escalation 2004-2009 = Rs. 39/- per sm/ annum 2% escalation 2009-2013= Rs.80.4/- per sm/annum 2% escalation 11 Revised lease rent under 2014 TAMP Order Land admeasuring 671078 sq. mtrs, 86700 sq. mtrs 15602 sq. mtrs 2014: Rs. 905.17 * Rate escalation @ 2% every year from 2014. Land admeasuring 116774 sq. mtrs. 2014: Rs. 108 * Rate escalation @ 2% every year from 2014. Land admeasuring 4,68,103 sq.mts. 55050 sq. mtrs. 2014: Rs. 597.59 * Rate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 04 = Rs. 1,13,33,015/- 2004-2009 = Rs. 1,51,37,627/- 2009-2011 = Rs. 1,55,31,344/- 2011-2013 = Rs. 84,31,645/- 2014-2018 = Rs. 48,68,51,469/- * Amount payable towards interest for delay payment have not been included. 14 Date of petition : 8.09.2014 15 Prayers A. To quash and set aside the notification dated 11.5.2011 issued by TAMP at Annexure A and further quash and set aside the demands raised by KPT at Annexure B in respect of retrospective revision of lease rents as also demand towards interest. B. To direct KPT to renew lease deeds without insisting for payment of the arbitrary demands impugned. (Page 1415) 16 Relief Granted - 17 Status of Public Premises Eviction proceedings Not started due to proceedings pending before the High court of Gujarat. 18 Specific Facts: NA 19 Nature of Preliminary Objections NA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -per sm/ annum 2% escalation 11 Revised lease rent under 2014 TAMP Order For land admeasuring 2,63,107 sq.mts . 2014: Rs. 905.17 * Rate escalation @ 2% every year from 2014 For land admeasuring 2,63,107 sq.mts . 2014: Rs. 108/ * Rate escalation @ 2% every year from 2014 12 Whether any change in category? For land admeasuring 2,63,107 sq.mts . C1 as per order of 2011 G2 as per order of 2014 For land admeasuring 4,4441 sq.mts . No change in category. 13 Breakup of amount due : (As per KPT's claim) For land admeasuring 2,63,107 sq.mts. 1994-1999 = Rs.14,815/- 1999-2004 = Rs. 2,91,46,994/- 2004-2009 = Rs. 3,89,31,943/- 2009-2011 = Rs. 3,93,25,061/- 2011-2013 = Rs. 2,15,39,393/- 2014-2018 = Rs. 86,61,91,083/- For land admeasuring 4441 sq.mts. 1999-2004 = Rs. 11529/- 2004-2009 = Rs. 0.00/- 2009-2011 = Rs. 3,17,648/- 2011-2013 = Rs. 1,75,295/- 2014-2018 = Rs. 0.00 /- * Amount payable towar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0 years for land admeasuring 2,786 sq.mts. 1.11.1984 to 31.10.2014 for a period of 30 years for land admeasuring 1,28,618 sq.mts. 1.12.1983 to 30.11.2013 for a period of 30 years for land admeasuring 91,567 sq.mts. 4 Status of lessee/allottee Petitioner has handed over possession WRT land admeasuring 1,28,618 sq.mts. With respect to land admeasuring 78,370 sq.mts and 50,799 sq.mts. the leases are due to expire in 2020. With respect to land admeasuring 91,567 sq.mts and 2,786 sq.mts. the leases stand expired as on 1.12.2013 and 1.8.2014 respectively. 5 Name of original lessee/allottee M/s. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. 6 Nature of change/transfer N.A. 7 Date of Application for transfer made to KPT. N.A. 8 Response by KPT to application for transfer. N.A. 9 Original lease rent rate (i) Land admg.1,28,618 sq.mts = Rs. 2.70 per sq. mtrs/per an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2014-2018 = Rs. 0.00/- * Amount payable towards interest for delay payment have not been included. 14 Date of petition: 18.10.2013 15 Prayers A. To admit and allow the present petition. B. To set aside the order dated 25.3.2011 of TAMP. C. To set aside the demand notes claiming amount of Rs. 32,58,74,733/levied for the revised rentals and interest with retrospective effect by KPT on the basis of TAMP order dated 25.3.2011. D. To direct that amount of Rs. 3,28,42,389/paid under protest for period 20122013 and amount of Rs. 1,26,31,037/( for 2 plots) for year 20132014 be adjusted with future rentals. (Page 2526) 16 Relief Granted Relief granted vide order dated 4.12.2013 passed in SCA No. 16225 of 2013 observing that the impugned notices and letters issued by KPT qua the recovery of tariff with retrospective effect only shall remain stayed till then. 17 Status of Public Premises Eviction proceedings No proceedings initiated. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6 Nature of change/transfer N.A. 7 Date of Application for transfer made to KPT. N.A. 8 Response by KPT to application for transfer. N.A. 9 Original lease rent rate i) Land admg.1,28,618 sq.mts = Rs. 2.70 per sq. mtrs/per annum. ii) Land admg. 78,370 sq.mts = Rs. 3.60 per sq. mtrs/per annum. iii) Land admg. 91567 sq.mts = Rs. 2.70 per sq. mtrs/per annum. iv) Land admg. 50,799 sq.mts = Rs. 28/per sq. mtrs/per annum v) Land admg. 2786 sq.mts = Rs. 11/per sq. mtrs/per annum 10 Revised lease rent rate under TAMP Order 2011 For land admeasuring 91,567 sq.mts 128618 sq. mtrs. . 1994-1999 = Rs. 11/- per sm/per annum 1999-2004 = Rs. 30/- per s.m/per annum 2% escalation 2004-2009 = Rs. 39/- per s.m/ per annum 2% escalation 2009-2011= Rs. 80.4/- per s.m/per annum 2% escalation For land admeasuring 78,370 sq.mts. 50,799 2786 sq. mtrs. 1994-1999 = Rs. 11/- per sm/per a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... able and without any basis. E. To decide the representation dated 21.10.2015 after giving hearing to the petitioner. To direct the amount of Rs. 15,53,75,124/and Rs. 3,28,42,388/paid under protest for the period from 1994 to 2013 be adjusted with future rentals.(Page 4647) 16 Relief Granted Relief granted vide order dated 4.12.2013 passed in SCA No. 16225 of 2013 observing that the impugned notices and letters issued by KPT qua the recovery of tariff with retrospective effect only shall remain stayed till then. 17 Status of Public Premises Eviction proceedings No proceedings initiated. 18 Specific Facts : NA 19 Nature of Preliminary Objections NA 20 Issue of Renewal No renewal clause in the lease deed and no reliefs sought. SCA No. 9342 of 2015 Sr. No. Details 1 Petitioner Oil and Natural ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fication dated 6.5.2011 by TAMP is not applicable to petitioner inasmuch it pertains to retrospective revision of TAMP rental rates. c. To declare that KPT has wrongly claimed interest on account of its delay in submitting bills to ONGC. d. To set aside final bill of Rs. 36,71,410/for the period upto 10.9.2008. e. To set aside the differential retrospective bill of Rs. 31,61,953/for period from 1.7.1999 to 21.2.2007. f. To set aside the interest claimed by KPT in compensation bill for the period from 22.2.2007 to 21.2.2012. g. To set aside the order dated 19.2.2015 in PP Act Case no. 17 of 2013 to the extent of holding ONGC as unauthorized occupant and for initiating recovery proceeding for amount of Rs. 1,22,10,827/- h. To direct KPT to accept the cheques for payment of revised rentals for period from 22.2.2012 to 21.2.2013 and from 22.2.2012 to 23.12.2014. i. To direct KPT to refund Rs. 52,98,818.53/as on 5.5.2015 inclusive of compounding interest and future 18% compound interest. Para 29 : To set aside show cause notice dated 23.7.2015 To set aside recovery order dated 17.3.2016 in PP Act Case no. 1 of 2015. (Page 28 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n category? F2 as per order of 2011 F2 as per order of 2014 13 Breakup of amount due from allottee: (As per KPT's claim) 1994-1999 = Rs. 16,820/- 1999-2004 = Rs. 2,37,845/- 2004-2009 = Rs. 3,20,854/- 2009-2011 = Rs. 3,47,048/- 2011-2013 = Rs. 1,85,578/- 2014-2018 = Rs. 87,05,134/- ** interest for delay payment not included in the dues. * 3 times TAMP approved rate charged from 01/10/2016. 14 Date of petition: 25.9.2013 15 Prayers Para 18 (A) i. To quash and set aside the order dated 25.3.2011 passed by TAMP amended by corrigendum dated 17.8.2011. ii. To set aside the demand notice and/or letters issued by KPT. iii. To quash and set aside Land Policy 2004, 2010 and any other policy, order or direction prescribing fixation of lease rentals on the basis of market valuation to the extent the same prescribes fixation of lease rentals on the basis of market valuation. (B) i. To command respondent no.2 to grant renewal o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r. N.A. 9 Original lease rent rate Rs. 1,15,240.95/( yearly) 10 Revised lease rent rate under TAMP Order 2011 2001-2004 = Rs. 45.64/- per s.m/ annum 5% escalation 2004-2009 = Rs. 53.4/- per s.m/ annum 2% escalation 2009-2011= Rs. 110.40/- per s.m/ annum 2% escalation * Lease expired during the year 2001. 11 Revised lease rent under 2014 TAMP Order 2014: Rs. 236.52 (A category) * Rate escalation @ 2% every year from 2014. 12 Whether any change in category? A as per order of 2011 A as per order of 2014 13 Breakup of amount due : As per KPT's claim 2001-2004 = Rs. 19,72,614/- 2004-2009 = Rs. 1,87,82,749/- 2009-2011 = Rs. 5,19,36,267/- 2011-2013 = Rs. 5,39,26,247/- 2014-2018 = Rs. 23,56,76,229/- H. The above Outstanding dues is without interest. 14 Date of petition : 7.1.2014 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with respect to land admeasuring 4,13,509 for a period of 30 years. 19.4.1978 to 18.4.2008 with respect to land admeasuring 35,961 sq.mts. for a period of 30 years. 4 Status of lessee/ allottee Unauthorized occupant since 8.3.2008 and 19.4.2008. 5 Name of original lessee/allottee Indian Farmers Fertilize Cooperative Ltd. 6 Nature of change/transfer NA 7 Date of Application for transfer made to KPT. NA 8 Response by KPT to application for transfer. NA 9 Original lease rent rate 0.45 Paisa per sq.mt with respect to land admeasuring 4,13,509 sq.mts and 35,961 sq.mts. 10 Revised lease rent rate under TAMP Order 2011 1994-1999 = Rs. 11/- per sm/annum 1999-2004 = Rs. 41.4/- per s.m/ annum 5% escalation 2004-2009 = Rs. 53.4/- per s.m/ annum 2% escalation 2009-2011= Rs. 110.4/- per s.m/ annum 2% escal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Specific Facts : GOI has returned the recommendation of renewal of lease by DPT stating interalia, if it not possible of charge the lease rent at the commercial rates, take the possession of the land from IFFCO (Page 358) Vide letter of 5.4.2002 by KPT, it was informed to IFFCO that, the recommendation of renewal of lease at Rs. 16 was provisional and subject to revision of rate approved by TAMP for which undertakin was given by IFFCO. 19 Nature of Preliminary Objections NA 20 Issue of Renewal Renewal subject to conditions and terms being fulfilled and upon discretion of lessor. Para 16 (C) of the prayer clause is with respect to renewal of lease agreement. SCA No. 5218 of 2014 Sr. No. Details 1 Petitioner PSL Limited. 2 Lessee/Allottee Copy of Lease Deed/Allottment Letter and Important terms/clauses Leave and License agreement on temporary basis WRT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Relief Granted Vide order dated 22.04.2014, the Hon ble Court granted relief staying the operation and implementation of Bills of Compensation and further restraining respondents from taking coercive steps. 17 Status of Public Premises Eviction proceedings PP Act Case no. 2 of 2013 concluded holding the petitioner to be in unauthorized occupation of the subject premises. 18 Specific Facts : Possession handed back to DPT pending the petition. 19 Nature of Preliminary Objections N.A. 20 Issue of Renewal No clause for renewal in the agreement and no reliefs for renewal sought. SCA No. 5219 of 2014 Sr. No. Details 1 Petitioner PSL Limited. 2 Lessee/Allottee Copy of Lease Deed/Allotment Letter and Important terms/clauses Leave and License agreement on temporary basis WRT parc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... granted relief staying the operation and implementation of Bills of Compensation and further restraining respondents from taking coercive steps 17 Status of Public Premises Eviction proceedings PP Act Case no. 6 of 2013 concluded holding the petitioner to be in unauthorized occupation of the subject premises. 18 Specific Facts : Possession handed back to DPT pending the petition. 19 Nature of Preliminary Objections NA 20 Issue of Renewal No clause for renewal in the agreement and no reliefs sought. SCA No. 5222 of 2014 Sr. No. Details 1 Petitioner PSL Limited. 2 Lessee/Allottee Copy of Lease Deed/Allotment Letter and Important terms/clauses Letter of Allotment WRT parcel of land admeasuring 39,934 sq.mts issued in favour of Punj Sons Pvt.Ltd.(PSL) on 18.10.1985. (Page 26) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2(e) and clause 6.2.2.3(g) of Land Policy, 2010 being unreasonable and arbitrary. 4. To set aside Land Policy 2010 and 2014. (Page 2122) 16 Relief Granted Vide order dated 22.04.2014, the Hon ble Court granted relief staying the operation and implementation of Bills of Compensation and further restraining respondents from taking coercive steps. 17 Status of Public Premises Eviction proceedings PP Act Case no. 5 of 2013 concluded holding the petitioner to be in unauthorized occupation of the subject premises along with direction to pay compensation for the period 2007 to 2015 Against the aforesaid, an Appeal was preferred which is pending. 18 Specific Facts : Possession handed over to DPT pending the petition. Order passed u/s 5 and section 7(pg.270 of SCA 5222/14) of PP ACT. 13.4.2007 undertaking to pay license fees if revised upwardly covering the period of license. Pg. 192 19 Nature of Preliminary Objections NA 20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Amount payable towards interest for delay payment have not been included. 14 Date of petition : 07.04.2013. 15 Prayers 1. To admit and allow the petition. 2 To direct the respondents to renew the lease agreement dated 18.10.1985 at the rates prevalent at the relevant time. 3 To declare that bills of compensation raised are unreasonable and without any basis. 4 To declare that bills of compensation raised are unreasonable and without any basis. 5 To declare clause 6.2.2.2(e) and clause 6.2.2.3(g) of Land Policy, 2010 being unreasonable and arbitrary. 6 To set aside Land Policy 2010 and 2014. 16 Relief Granted Vide order dated 22.04.2014, the Hon ble Court granted relief staying the operation and implementation of Bills of Compensation and further restraining respondents from taking coercive steps. 17 Status of Public Premises Eviction proceedings PP Act Case no. 3 of 2013 concluded holding the petitioner to be in unauthorized occupation of the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 13 Breakup of amount due : (As per KPT's claim) 1999-2004 = Rs. 69,81,000/- 2004-2009 = Rs. 94,45,537/- 2009-2011= Rs. 1,03,96,917/- 2011-2013 = Rs. 2,82,77,272/- 2014-2018 = Rs. 4,50,39,726/- * Amount payable towards interest for delay payment have not been included. 14 Date of petition : 07.04.2013. 15 Prayers 1 To admit and allow the petition. 2 To direct the respondents to renew the lease agreement dated 18.10.1985 at the rates prevalent at the relevant time. 3 To declare that bills of compensation raised are unreasonable and without any basis. 4 To declare that bills of compensation raised are unreasonable and without any basis. 5 To declare clause 6.2.2.2(e) and clause 6.2.2.3(g) of Land Policy, 2010 being unreasonable and arbitrary. 6 To set aside Land Policy 2010 and 2014. (Page 2021) 16 Relief Granted Vide order dated 22.04.2014, the Hon ble Court granted relief staying the operation and implementation of Bills of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .12.2011 = Rs. 17.17 Per sq. mtr/per month 1.01.2012 to 31.12.2012 = Rs. 17.51 Per sq. mtr/per month 1.01.2013 to 12.09.2013 = Rs. 17.86 Per sq. mtr/per month 13.09.2013 to 31.12.2013 = Rs. 53.58 Per sq. mtr/per month 1.01.2014 to 31.12.2014 = Rs. 54.65 Per sq. mtr/per month 1.01.2015 to 3.2.2015 = Rs. 55.74 Per sq. mtr/per month 11 Revised lease rent under 2014 TAMP Order The rates applicable with effect from 1.01.2014 have been not approved by TAMP hence the difference of rate shall be payable as per revised rate as and when approved by TAMP 12 Whether any change in category? NA 13 Dues under 2014 TAMP Order : Retrospective/Pros Pective As per column 11 14 Date of petition: 03.07.2015 15 Prayers A. To admit and allow the petition. B. Unreasonable demand at such exorbitant rates without any basis as being illegal, unreasonable, arbitrary and violative Art 14 and 19(1)(g) of the constit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al lessee/allottee PSL LTD., (ON LEAVE LICENSE BASIS) 6 Nature of change/transfer No details of transfer provided. 7 Date of Application for transfer made to KPT. NA 8 Response by KPT to application for transfer. NA 9 Original lease rent rate Rs. 2 per sq.mt./per month i.e Rs 89,174.00 per month 10 Revised lease rent rate under TAMP Order 2011 17.06.2007 to 31.12.2007= Rs. 6.63/Per sq. mtr/per month 1.01.2008 to 31.12.2008 = Rs. 6.77 Per sq. mtr/per month 1.01.2009 to 31.12.2009 = Rs. 16.50 Per sq. mtr/per month 1.01.2010 to 31.12.2010 = Rs. 16.83 Per sq. mtr/per month. 1.01.2011 to 31.12.2011 = Rs. 17.17 Per sq. mtr/per month 1.01.2012 to 31.12.2012 = Rs. 17.51 Per sq. mtr/per month 1.01.2013 to 12.09.2013 = Rs. 17.86 Per sq. mtr/per month 13.09.2013 to 31.12.2013 = Rs. 53.58 Per sq. mtr/per month 1.01.2014 to 18.11.2014 = Rs. 54.65 Per sq. mtr/per month ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A No. 11497 of 2015 Sr. No. Details 1. Petitioner Kesar Terminals Infrastructure Ltd. (Formerly known as Kesar Enterprises) 2. Lessee/Allottee Copy of Lease Deed/Allottment Letter Lease deed WRT parcel of land admeasuring 6878 sq.mts issued in favour of Kesar Enterprises Ltd. on 03.07.1978 (which was registered on 26.8.1986) (Page 61) 3. Duration of lease/holding 3.7.1978 to 2.7.2008 i.e. for a period of 30 years. 4. Status of lessee/allottee Unauthorized occupant since 3.7.2008 5. Name of original lessee/allottee Kesar Enterprises Ltd. 6. Nature of change/transfer Scheme for arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act for demerger approved vide order dated 12.3.2010 passed by the Bombay High Court. (separately provided) 7. Date of Application for transfer made to KPT. No application was made. 8. Response by KPT to Application for transfer. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of lease was over therefore derives no right in the demised land. Therefore cannot be treated as lessee for the purpose of the renewal of lease. 20. Nature of Preliminary Objections I. Petitioner being a transferee after the period of lease is over, therefore derives no interest in the property therefore, has no locus to maintain the petition for such reliefs. 21. Issue of Renewal J. Renewal was subject to conditions and terms being fulfilled and upon discretion of lessor. K. Prayer (B) is with respect to renewal of lease agreement. SCA No. 10730 of 2016 Sr. No. Details 1. Petitioner Kesar Terminals Infrastructure Ltd. 2. Lessee/Allottee Copy of Lease Deed/ Allottment Letter Letter of Allotment WRT parcel of land admeasuring 2524.530 sq.mts on temporary Leave and License Basis issued in favour of Kesar Enterprises Ltd. on 19.09.2005 (Page 3132) 3. Duration of lease/holding 11 months from 1.10.2005 to 31.8.2006 Lastly extended f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e operation and execution of compensation bills raised by respondents in respect of subject plot. 16. Relief Granted Petitioner was granted liberty to seek adjournment in the proceedings before Estate Officer. 17. Status of Public Premises Eviction proceedings Case No. 1072/25/2016 is pending before Estate Officer. 18. Specific Facts : The term of live and license has lapsed in the year 2008, the deeds were without a right of renewal. Transfer is made after the term of license therefore no interest is created wrt to the lands in question. No right or interest is created in the premises on the basis of the live and license agreement. 19. Nature of Preliminary Objections As the transfer is after the lapse of term of live and license, no interest is transferred unto the transferee company. No right or interest is created in the premises on the basis of the live and license agreement. 20. Issue of Renewal Live and license agreements are without a right for renewal Pra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 11 Revised lease rent under 2014 TAMP Order 2014: Rs. 350.16/- * Rate escalation @ 2% every year from 2014. 12 Whether any change in category? There is no change in the category. 13 Breakup of amount due : (As per KPT's claim) 2014-2018 = Rs. 27,60,673/- 14 Date of petition : 30.6.2016 15 Prayers 1. To quash and set aside impugned notices dated 3.6.2016 and 3/8.12.2014 issued by respondent no.2 and 3. 2. To direct the respondents to renew the Leave and License Agreement in respect of subject plot admeasuring 542 sq.mts. at the rates prevalent at the relevant time. 3. To hold and declare the Bills of Compensation raising unreasonable demand at exorbitant rates bad and illegal. 4. To direct respondent authorities not to take any coercive steps and to stay the impugned notices dated 3.6.2016 and 3/8.12.2014. 5. To stay the operation and execution of compensation bills raised by respondents in respect of subje ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2010 passed by the Bombay High Court. 7. Date of Application for transfer made to KPT. NA 8. Response by KPT to application for transfer. Letter dated 14.3.2012 by which payments from the petitioning company were refused as it was not the allottee. (Page 58) * Vide letter dated 23.3.2012 petitioning company had provided details of the order of amalgamation of companies vide a communication of 11.7.2010. (Page 60) 9. Original lease rent rate Rs. 1.50 per sq.mt. 10. Revised lease rent rate under TAMP Order 2011 2008-2009 = Rs. 42.21/-per s.m/ annum 2% escalation 2009-2011= Rs. 80.40/-per s.m/ annum 2% escalation 11. Revised lease rent under 2014 TAMP Order 2014: Rs. 108/- * Rate escalation @ 2% every year from 2014. 12. Whether any change in category? There is no change in category. 13. Dues under 2014 TAMP Order : Retrospective/P rospective Jan, 2014 Nov, 2014: = Rs. 79,168/- Nov, 2014 Dec, 201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Letter of Allotment WRT parcel of land admeasuring 11,983 sq.mts issued in favour of M/s. Tanker Owner s Operator s Associations dated 24.9.1982. No lease deed executed. (Page 51A) 3 Duration of lease/holding 24.1.1983 to 23.1.2013 for a period of 30 years. 4 Status of lessee/allottee Unauthorized occupant since 24.1.2013 5 Name of original lessee/allottee NA 6 Nature of change/transfer NA 7 Date of Application for transfer made to KPT. NA 8 Response by KPT to application for transfer. NA 9 Original lease rent rate Rs. 2.70 per sq.mt./per annum 10 Revised lease rent rate under 2011 Tamp Order: 1994-1999 = Rs. 16/-per sm/annum 1999-2004 = Rs. 36-/per s.m/ annum 5% escalation 2004-2009= Rs. 46.2/-per s.m/ annum 2% escalation 2009-201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Status of Public Premises Eviction proceedings No proceedings initiated. 19 Specific Facts: L. In absence of execution of deed of lease, no rights are vested into the petitioner, much less a right of renewal of lease. M. Second Appeal pending before High Court of Guj. Wherein interim relief is granted against payment of revised rates (pg. 61) 20 Nature of preliminary objections In absence of execution of deed of lease, no rights are vested into the petitioner, much less a right of renewal of lease. In absence of a legal right the writ is not maintainable. 21 Issue of Renewal 22. No clause of renewal of lease, more as the deed of lease has not been executed. 23. Para 10 (A) of the prayer clause is with respect to renewal of lease agreement. SCA No. 2905 of 2015 Sr. No. Details 1 Petitioner Avean International Pvt Ltd. 2 Lessee/Allot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0.00/- 2014-2018 = Rs. 0.00/- 15 Date of petition : 11.2.2015 16 Prayers A. To direct respondents to forthwith renew the lease agreement dated 16.9.1988 for land admeasuring 4,646 sq.mts at the rates prevalent at the relevant time. B. To set aside notice dated 12.1.2015 issued by respondent no.2. C. To declare the bills of compensation raising unreasonable demand at such exorbitant rates without any basis. D. To declare the differential bills being raising unreasonable demand at such exorbitant rates without any basis. E. To declare that land admeasuring 4,646 sq.mts. is leased to the petitioner and is covered under category D 2 and the respondents be directed to charge lease rental accordingly and also refund the amount which has been charged. F. To set aside Land Policy 2010 and 2014. 17 Relief Granted Order dated 26.2.2015 the respondent was directed not to take any coercive action. 18 Status of Public Premises Eviction proceedings Not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is not the lessee under the lease deed, and therefore, not entitled to the enforcement of rights on the basis of lease created in favour of the original allottee. 7.2. The basic postulate of the argument of Mr. Joshi is that the petitioners in the afore-stated petitions are the transferees and in unauthorised occupation of their respective plots in question, and therefore, they have no locus standi to file and maintain the petitions claiming relief against the KPT. Elaborating his submissions, Mr. Joshi submitted that there are three categories of the petitioners, who are the transferees and occupying the plots in question unauthorizedly. Firstly, the petitioners, who claim their rights under a valid subsisting lease with original allottees, but have no locus standi as the transfer itself was impermissible without prior permission of the Port Trust. They are unauthorised occupants liable for penal rates of lease rent for the period of their occupation and also liable for eviction. In this regard he has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in case of State of Raj asthan and Ors. Vs. Gotan Lime Stone Khanij Udyog Pvt. Ltd. and Anr., reported in (2016) 4 SCC 469. According ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es are one and the same. Placing reliance on the decision of the Delhi High Court, Mr. Joshi submitted that even conversion of partnership firm to a joint stock company under the provisions of Companies Act 1956 amounts to transfer. Since transfer could be affected only with the prior approval of KPT, the contention of the petitioners that the transfer fees ought to be computed as on the date of transfer was misconceived. He further submitted that in case where no lease deed was executed, the original allottee was not entitled to transfer its interest at all and such transfer cannot be recognized. Without prejudice to the contention that the transfers were unauthorised, he further submitted that the transferees being unauthorised occupants were liable for the payment of three times the lease rent for the period of their occupation and also for eviction. Mr. Joshi has also urged that some of the petitions are also barred by delay, laches and acquiescence as the orders passed by the TAMP in the year 2011 and 2014 have been sought to be challenged in the year 2017. 8. In response to the said preliminary objections raised by Mr. Joshi, the learned Advocates appearing for the respect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... td. (SCA No. 2537 of 2017) Mr. Soparkar submitted that the JRE Tank was incorporated on November 16, 2004 under Part-IX of the Companies Act and was earlier known as M/s. JR Enterprises, a partnership firm, which was registered as a company after complying with all the requirements under Part-IX of the Companies Act. Pressing into service the provisions contained in Section 575 of the Companies Act, he submitted that on the registration of the company under Part-IX of the said Act, the erstwhile partnership firm would step into the shoes of a company and all assets and liabilities of the erstwhile firm would vest in the newly incorporated company. Such vesting being a statutory act, it could not be termed as a transfer. In this regard, he has placed reliance on the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in case of Vali Pattabhirama Rao Anr. Vs. Sri Ramanuja Ginning and Rice Factory Pvt. Ltd. Ors., reported in AIR 1984 AP 176, which was considered and affirmed by the Supreme Court in Jai Narain Parasrampuria (Dead) and Ors. Vs. Pushpa Devi Saraf and Ors., reported in (2006) 7 SCC 756. 8.3 So far as Special Civil Application No. 13371 of 2013 and Special Civil Application N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... other chemicals on behalf of the public and private sector units and also of traders. He further submitted that by a scheme of arrangement under Sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 for demerger of the storage undertaking known as Distillers Trading Corporation (DTC), a division of Kesar Enterprises Ltd. (KEL) as going concern into Kesar Terminals Infrastructure Ltd. (KTIL), the resulting company came to be proposed before the High Court of Bombay, which scheme was sanctioned by order dated 12.3.2010. The petitioner company thereafter vide communication dated 11.7.2010 had intimated the respondent KPT to take note of the order passed by the High Court of Bombay and give effect to the same by recognizing and amending the name of the petitioner company instead of KEL. The respondent KPT in response thereto had asked the petitioner to furnish certain documents vide the letter dated 13.8.2010, which were furnished by the petitioner vide reply dated 29.8.2010. Thereafter the petitioner had sent reminders to the respondent KPT but there was no reply. In the meantime, the petitioner had continued to pay the lease rentals as per the demand notices and compensation bills, howe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Advocate Mr. Mihir Joshi for the respondent KPT as regards the locus standi of the petitioners M/s. IMC Limited, M/s. JRE Tank Terminals, M/s. Kesar Terminals, M/s. Mother Dairy and M/s. INEOS Styrolution India Ltd., is concerned, it would be apt to mention that the Supreme Court in case of Jasbhai Motibhai Desai Vs. Roshan Kumar, Haji Bashir Ahmed and Ors., (supra) after elaborately discussing the English decisions on who could be said to be an aggrieved person to invoke the writ jurisdiction in the context of Indian decisions, has observed that the scope and meaning of Article 226 depends on diverse, variable factors such as the content and intent of the statute of which contravention is alleged, the specific circumstances of the case, the nature and extent of the petitioner's interest, and the nature and extent of the prejudice or injury suffered by him. It has been further observed in paragraph 34 as under:- 34. This Court has laid down in a number of decisions that in order to have the locus standi to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226, an applicant should ordinarily be one who has a personal or individual right in the subject-matter of the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ght or interest has been adversely affected or jeopardized. 11. From the afore-stated legal position, it is clear that there must be a judicially enforceable right available to the petitioner for the enforcement, on the basis of which writ jurisdiction is resorted to. The relief prayed must be one to enforce a legal right. Such legal right must be existing in favour of the petitioner, which has been adversely affected or jeopardized, before invoking the extraordinary writ jurisdiction as an aggrieved person . Hence, let us examine as to whether the petitioners against whom the preliminary objections as regards the locus standi have been raised, have any legally enforceable right, which has been adversely affected, so as to bring them within the category of aggrieved person entitled to invoke extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. 12. The bone of contention raised by Mr. Joshi for the respondent KPT against M/s. IMC Limited, M/s. Kesar Terminals, and M/s. Mother Dairy is that the amalgamation under the Companies Act though with the sanction of the Court, would be a voluntary transfer and the transferee Companies who are the petitioners herei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 11. These cases clearly hold that even if there is an order of a Court sanctioning the scheme of amalgamation under Sections 391 and 394 of the Companies Act whereunder the leases, rights of tenancy or occupancy of the Transferor Company get vested in and become the property of the Transferee Company, it would make no difference in so far as the applicability of Section 14(1)(b) is concerned, as the Act does not make any exception in favour of a lessee who may have adopted such a course of action in order to secure compliance of law. 13. Similar view was also taken by the Supreme Court in case of M/s. General Radio and Appliances Co. Ltd. and Ors. Vs. M.A. Khader (dead) by LRs. (supra), wherein it was urged on behalf of the original tenant that the amalgamation of M/s. General Radio and Appliances Company Limited with M/s. National Ekco Radio and Engineering Co. Limited was an involuntary act, which had been brought into being on the basis of the order passed by the High Court under Section 391 and Section 394 of the Companies Act and that both the companies had merely blended with each other and consequently there was no sub-letting by the original lessee company. The Supr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted in the newly incorporated company by virtue of Section 575 of the Companies Act. According to him, such vesting being statutory could not be termed as transfer . In this regard, Mr. Soparkar has relied upon the judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in case of Vali Pattabhirama Rao (supra). In the opinion of the Court, even if it is accepted that the original partnership firm was converted into a private limited company i.e. the petitioner company under Part-IX of the Companies Act and that all properties of partnership firm had vested in the petitioner company under Section 575 of the said Act and that no conveyance deed was required to be executed separately, then also such transaction could not be said to be an involuntary transfer. The original allottee M/s. JR Enterprises, which was a partnership firm having ceased to exist, and the new company i.e. petitioner having come into existence by virtue of a voluntary act, it would be tantamount to a transfer, applying the same analogy as in case of amalgamation of two companies under the Scheme of arrangement and reconstruction under Section 391 and Section 394 of the Companies Act. When such transfer was voluntary and in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lands, KPT had issued LOA on temporary leave and licence basis in respect of three parcels of land in favour of original allottee Kesar Enterprises Limited, the term of which has already expired in 2006; and one lease deed was executed in favour of said original allottee Kesar Enterprises for a period of 30 years from 1978 to 2008. The Scheme for arrangement under Section 391 and 394 of the Companies Act for demerger was approved by the Bombay High Court on 12.3.2010 i.e. after the expiry of the term of lease/LOA. In case of the petitioner M/s. Mother Dairy (SCA No. 8538 of 2016 and No. 13371 of 2013) the lease deeds were executed in favour of original allottee NDDB for a period of 30 years from 1989 to 2019, however, during the intervening period the entities were changed, and lastly a scheme of amalgamation proposed by Dhara and M/s. Mother Dairy was sanctioned by the Delhi High Court as per the order dated 13.8.2008. In case of INEOS (SCA No. 10611 of 2016), lease deed was executed in favour of original allottee ABS Industries Limited for a period of 30 years from 1990 to 2020, however, in between the name of the said company and the share holdings were changed from time to ti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mention that the Court has made the aforesaid observations only for limited purpose of examining the locus of the petitioners against whom the preliminary objections for maintaining the petitions at their instance, were raised by the respondent KPT, and has not gone into the issue of their liability to pay the transfer fees. The Court is required to make this clarification as the predecessor of the petitioner IMC Limited i.e. the USTTL, the original allottee had filed Special Civil Application No. 17559 of 2003 before this Court, challenging the action of the respondent KPT in demanding the amount of premium vide communication dated 5/6.8.2003. Pending the said petition, the said USTTL having been amalgamated with M/s. IMC by virtue of the order passed by Calcutta High Court, the petitioner M/s. IMC had filed Civil Application No. 6449 of 2016 for substituting it as the petitioner in the said petition in place of USTTL. The said Civil Application was opposed by the respondent KPT on the ground that the petitioner had not paid the transfer fee. The Single Bench vide the order dated 14.7.2017 dismissed both the Special Civil Application No. 17559 of 2003 as well as the Civil Applicat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... part of the petitioners in challenging the action of the KPT and the Notifications issued by the Temp, on the contrary the demands raised by the KPT were hopelessly time barred. Even otherwise, the provisions of Limitation Act do not apply to the writ proceedings as held by the Supreme Court in case of Smt. Sudama Devi Vs. Commissioner Ors., reported in (1983) 2 SCC 1 and in case of M.R. Gupta Vs. Union of India, reported in (1995) 5 SCC 628. (ii) The respondent Port Trust constituted under the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 is not a Government in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in case of Board of Trustees for Visakhapatnam Port Trust Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, reported in (1999) 6 SCC 78, and therefore, it cannot seek to issue demand notices relating to the demands earlier than three years. In the instant cases, the KPT has sought to revise the demands going back to more than 15 years. (iii) There is no basis justifying the KPT's demand seeking levy of lease rents with retrospective effect. None of the lease deeds/letters of allotments permitted recovery of lease rents with retrospective effect. The retrospective levies cannot be made in absence of contractu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... une 2014 as the proposal for revising the lease rentals was not ready. However, the order passed by the TAMP on 13.11.2014 was sought to be retrospectively applied from January 1, 2014, instead of giving effect from July 1, 2014. (x) The TAMP had abdicated its function as an adjudicator by accepting all the submissions made by the KPT with respect to retrospectivity in the impugned orders/notifications passed by the TAMP in 2011 and 2014. (xi) Even the Major Port Trusts Act does not permit the retrospective levy of lease rentals. Relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in case of C.W.T. Vs. Shravan Kumar Swarup and Sons, reported in (1994) 6 SCC 623, it is submitted that substantive law cannot be made applicable with retrospective effect, unless done so by way of statute itself. (xii) Challenging exorbitant increase of lease rents, it is submitted that in the 2011 order the KPT had sought to justify the increase in lease rents, which were not revised for several years. Even if it is assumed arguendo that it was sustainable, the said increase was unreasonable, exorbitant and arbitrary. The 2011 order came into effect only from May 20, 2013 and it was revised again un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... now are in violation of the said clause of the lease deed. (xviii) The KPT's actions fall foul of the test of reasonableness laid down by the Supreme Court in case of Dwarkadas Marfatia Vs. Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay, reported in (1989) 3 SCC 293 and in case of Jamshed Hormusji Wadia Vs. Board of Trustees, Port of Mumbai, reported in (2004) 3 SCC 214. (xix) Though there was clear understanding between the parties, at the time of execution of lease that since the lease fell under the premium-cum-lease model, the lease rentals would undergo a reasonable increase, however, the arbitrary and unreasonable increase of lease rentals was never contemplated, totally disregarding the high premium paid by the petitioners. In this regard, reliance is placed on the decision of he Supreme Court in case of Bhupendra Singh Bhatia Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh Ors., reported in (2006) 13 SCC 700. (xx) As regards the classification/categorization of the land it has been submitted that the lands occupied by the petitioners were originally categorized on the basis of the geographical location of such land, however, the 2014 TAMP order confirmed the arbitrary re-categorization ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e. (xxiv) The judgments cited by the learned Sr. Advocate Mr. Joshi for the KPT on various issues have been distinguished by the learned Advocates appearing for the petitioners. The same shall be dealt with herein under at appropriate stages. PETITION-WISE SUBMISSIONS: 24. The respective learned Advocates appearing for the petitioners, in addition to the afore-stated common submissions, have made submissions individually also, which may be summarized as under:- (i) Mr. Soparkar submitted that the petitioner M/s. IMC Ltd., in addition to the regular lease rentals prevailing prior to the revision of SOR had made payment of Rs. 2,02,94,150/- during the period January 2014 to January 2018 so far as the subject plot of SCA No. 2535 of 2017 was concerned and had made payment of Rs. 84,80,655/- during January 2014 to January 2018 so far as the subject plot of SCA No. 2536 of 2017 was concerned. The petitioner M/s. JRE had made payment of Rs. 52,76,389/- for the subject plot Of SCA No. 2537 of 2017. (ii) As regards the subject plot in SCA No. 2538 of 2017, he submitted that the Clause-8 of the lease deed dated 17.9.1984 executed between M/s. IMC Limited and the KPT provi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hange of category was given to the petitioner and no reasons were given as to why the category of the petitioner was changed. (iv) So far as SCA Nos. 673 of 2014 and 2607 of 2012 filed by the Indian Farmers Fertilizers Cooperative Society Ltd. (IFFCO) are concerned, it has been submitted by Mr. Soparkar for M/s. Nanavati Associates that the petitioner company utilizes the land in question for the production of fertilizer, which is supplied at the de-controlled prices to the farmers of about 40000 cooperative societies. The petitioner company, therefore, would fall either under Sub-section (c) of (d) of Section 49(1) of the said Act. The petitioner has also played a major role in pushing the agricultural sector towards the next phase of green revolution. Hence, the petitioner could not be treated at par with the organizations, which are for profit making, and the petitioner could not be charged at the commercial rates. (v) It is further submitted that the petitioner IFFCO had always proposed upfront payment of lease for the entire tenure of 30 years when the old lease was going to an end. The KPT itself vide its letter dated 7.9.2010 had resolved to renew the lease for Phase-I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the lease in respect of 6877.97 sq. mtrs. of the land executed on 26.8.1986 for a period of 30 years with effect from 3.7.1978 had expired on 2.7.2008 and the application for its renewal is pending with the KPT. The said lease deed provided that the lease rent fixed at Rs. 2.88 per sq. mtrs., could be increased at the end of 10 years so as not to exceed double the amount i.e. Rs. 5.76 per sq. mtrs., and it can further be increased at the end of 20 years, however, the increase could not exceed three times the rent fixed i.e. Rs. 8.64 per sq. mtrs.. Hence, the KPT was not entitled to claim any rent higher than what is stated during the period of lease on its own or on the basis of TAMP order. Since the renewal application is pending, it could not be said that the petitioner is an unauthorized occupant since the 2008. (ix) Learned Sr. Advocate Mr. Naik further submitted that the TAMP could fix different schedule of rates only prospectively and not retrospectively in view of the Sections 48 and 49 of the said Act, and therefore, the order dated 25.3.2011 of the TAMP to the extent it operates retrospectively is bad. In this regard, he has relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Company by virtue of the order passed by the Bombay High Court, the KPT should have accepted the amount of compensatory bills offered by the petitioner Company. He further submitted that the impugned notices issued under Section 4 of the Public Premises Act do not speak about unauthorized occupation of the petitioner, and that such notices were arbitrary and illegal. (xii) Learned Sr. Advocate Mr. K.S. Nanavati with learned Advocate Mr. Golani appearing for the petitioner INEOS in SCA No. 10611 of 2016 has submitted that the petitioner Company had taken necessary permissions from the statutory authorities before changing its name and the Registrar of Companies after being satisfied had issued fresh certificates of incorporation under the changed name of the petitioner company from time to time as per the provisions contained in Section 23 of the Companies Act. The respondent KPT could not levy exceptionally high lease rents and that too, with retrospective effect on the ground that the company is using the land, categorized as land for storage tanks and is generating high income by sub-letting the said land. The land of the petitioner, which is categorized as land of storage ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eafter the petitioner had also sent reminder for renewal of lease on 20.11.2012, however, the respondent KPT had informed the petitioner vide the letter dated 15.12.2012 that the petitioner had not made application for renewal of lease one year before the date of expiry of lease. The respondent KPT has not renewed the lease without any justifiable reason and has kept on raising compensation bills by charging exorbitant rate of ground rent, which the petitioner has always paid the same. It is further submitted that the plot of the petitioner has been wrongly categorized under the Category F-2 i.e. the Category for the plots situated on Ahmedabad Side from Kandla Railway Station, though the plot of the petitioner is not situated near to Kandla Railway Station. (xvi) Learned Advocate Mr. Akshat Khare appearing for the petitioner ONGC in SCA No. 9342 of 2015 submitted that there was no provision of retroactive clause in leave and licence agreement entered into between the parties. Though no bills were raised by he KPT prior to 2011, the illegal demand has been made on the ground of unauthorized use of the plot by the ONGC. The KPT has filed eviction petition before the Estate Office ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itted that the TAMP could not have given effect of the impugned order with respective effect. In this regard, she has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in case of Vice-Chancellor, M.D. University, Rohtak, reported in (2007) 5 SCC 77. (xix) Learned Sr. Advocate Mr. Manish Bhatt appearing for the petitioner IOC in SCA No. 13409 of 2014 submitted that the petitioner was allotted parcels of lands from time to time by either executing lease deed or by letter of allotment. Though the term of lease deed/term of allotment had expired, the petitioner had requested the KPT to renew the same, however, the same was not replied to. He further submitted that the KPT had made exorbitant demand of rental charges with retrospective effect, which was not permissible. He further submitted that the TAMP, which was a statutory authority, had without application of kind abdicated its function and accepted all the proposals made by the KPT by passing the impugned orders. According to him, the categorization of the lands on the basis of use made by the KPT and accepted by the TAMP was also arbitrary and irrational. The land of the petitioner was categorized in Category G-1, instead of Categ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vide the Land Policy for Major Ports 2004, Policy of 2010 and Policy of 2015, which stipulated that the lease rents would be 6% of the market value of the land as revised every five years, and that it would continue to be based on the category of the land. Accordingly, the liability i.e. 6% of market value, the methodology i.e. on the basis of market value, and the periodicity i.e. every five years was already fixed and imposed. The only component remaining was the determination of scale of rates on the basis of market value by the TAMP after considering the views of stake-holders. Hence, the TAMP vide the impugned orders has only undertaken the exercise of quantification of the liabilities already imposed on the lessees by the Central Government Policies. Section 49 of the said Act confer quasi legislative powers on the Board of Trustees/TAMP for fixing the scale of rates. Therefore, the contentions regarding retrospectivity of subordinate legislation are absolutely misplaced. (v) In any case, quantification of liability subsequent to its imposition cannot be said to be retrospective in decision as held by this Court in case of Cadila Laboratories Limited and Ors. Vs. Union of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the lands, which was challenged by the Letters of Intent holders, including the petitioner IMC and the same was rejected up to the Supreme Court. Thereafter, the proposal was revised and updated and finally sent on 19.4.2010 to the TAMP. In this regard, Mr. Joshi has relied upon the judgment of this Court in case of Nikhil Adhesives Ltd. thro. Dharmeshbhai Dhirajbhai Pandya Vs. Kandla Port Trust, reported in 2011 (2) GLH 283, and of the Supreme Court in case of Rishi Kiran Logistics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Board of Trustees of Kandla Port Trust and Ors., reported in 2015 (13) SCC 233. (viii) The lease rent has been determined under the policy, as being 6% of the market value, which cannot be termed as arbitrary. Such fixation is a matter of policy of the Central Government as best balancing the interests of the individual lessees/allottees and the Port Trusts themselves, which have to carry on extensive activities in relation to Ports in the public and national interest. (ix) On the issue as to whether the bid received by the KPT from the petitioner M/s. IMC in the year 2005 could be considered as an accepted tender or not, it has been submitted that the bids of 2005 had been accept ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iv) The valuation of the land is also based on the use of the land. The rent could not be decided only on the basis of location, irrespective of use, as the auction of land where a commercially advantageous use is permitted would fetch a much higher amount than a similarly located plot where such use is not permitted. (xv) Section 49 of the said Act pertaining to framing of the scale of rates under which the property of Trust may be used for the purpose specified thereunder, and therefore, the purpose or the use of the land is a criterion recognized by the statute itself for fixation of scale of rates. The land policy of 2004 and 2011 specifically directed that the scale of rates should vary in accordance with the purpose of land use. The 2014 policy while not adopting the same language, reiterates the principle by enumerating factors for valuation. (xvi) It cannot be disputed that the value of the land is dependent on the use to which it could be put. The land permitted to be used for tank farms constitutes a class by itself looking to the nature of use which is peculiar to ports and interconnected with the facilities relating to a port. Hence, lands used for tank farms cons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... earned Advocates for the petitioners. STATUTORY PROVISIONS:- 26. Before adverting to the respective submissions made by the learned Advocates for the parties, it would be apposite to refer to certain provisions of the said Act. The said Act has been enacted to make provisions for the constitution of the Port Authorities for certain major ports in India and to vest the administrative control and management of such ports in such authorities and for matters connected therewith. The said Act at the first instance was made applicable to the major ports of Cochin, Kandla and Visakhapatnam, which earlier were under the initial charge of port administrative officer appointed by the Central Government. As per the statement of objects and reasons, the Port Administrative Officer had limited powers and had to obtain the orders of the Central Government of many matters, which otherwise could have been disposed of at local level in the Port Trust. Hence, considering the fact that the other statutory Port Trust had successfully administered the three older Ports of Calcutta, Bombay and Madras for many years, it was proposed to constitute port trust at Visakhapatnam, Cochin and Kandla. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntral Government to issue directions to Board.- (1) Without prejudice to the foregoing provisions of this Chapter, the Authority and every Board shall, in the discharge of its functions under this Act be bound by such directions on questions of policy as the Central Government may give in writing from time to time: Provided that the Authority or the Board, as the case may be, shall be given opportunity to express its views before any direction is given under this sub-section. (2) The decision of the Central Government whether a question is one of policy or not shall be final. 29. The Ministry of Shipping, Government of India, considering the importance of the lands belonging to the Port Trusts and considering the provisions contained in Section 34 of the said Act, had issued the Land Policy for Major Ports in 2004 in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 111 of the said Act. Thereafter the Government of India, in supersession of the said Land Policy of 2004, issued Land Policy for Major Ports - 2010 for implementation by all Major Ports and Ennore Port Limited. Thereafter the Government of India had issued the Policy Guidelines for the land management by Majo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... om bound area on lease basis: a) If there is no option for renewal in the existing lease agreement, guidelines governing fresh allotment shall apply. However, the right of refusal may be given to the present lessee subject to the condition that he is a bona fide lessee without any default. The renewal shall be subject to payment of rent at the prevailing SoR or the market value, whichever is higher. b) If the renewal option is there in the lease agreement, the port should assess if the land is required by the port for its own use. In case it is not required by it, the port should then assess whether it is required for the purpose for which it was originally leased. If it is so required, it should be renewed for as short a period as possible and preferably in accordance with the SoR or the Market value, whichever is higher. Any concession shall be given only with the approval of the Board. IV - Renewal Clause under the Policy of 2014; 11.3 Renewal of Existing/Earlier Leases: (a) In cases of renewal of existing/earlier leases with or without renewal option, the Port should verify if the land is required for its own use. If it is so required, the Port shall take po ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... scrutinized by the Empowered Committee which would satisfy itself regarding the justification for such extension and competitiveness of the rate at which such extension is to be granted. Thereafter, approval will be granted by the Government. (h) After the expiry/termination of lease and despite receiving the notice thereof, or forfeiture of lease on account of change of use, assignment etc., if the lessee continues to occupy it unauthorizedly, the lessee shall be liable to pay compensation for wrongful use and occupation at three (3) times the annual lease rent based on the latest SoR, till vacant possession is obtained by the Port. In cases of land allotted on upfront basis, the equivalent annual lease rent would be calculated on pro-rata basis. (i) For existing leases, at the time of expiry/termination of lease, the lessee shall remove all structures at his own cost under the following conditions: (a) Within three (3) months of expiry/termination, if Port decides not to re-auction that land; or, (b) Three months after tender-cum-auction, if the existing lessee was not successful. Beyond this period, the lessee shall be liable to pay compensation for wrongful use a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Mumbai Port Trust @ 4% escalation per annum, till such time that SoR is revised with the approval of the competent authority/TAMP. (d) SoR will be revised every five years. (e) SoR should vary in accordance with the purpose of land use. The Committee should recommend to the competent authority, varying SoR in accordance with the end use as reflected in the Land Sue Plan. (f) Insofar as fixing of SoR for Port land is concerned, TAMP shall have the jurisdiction for any land both within the customs bound area and outside it as long as the land is used exclusively for Port related activity. The SoR for all land of Major Ports will be fixed by TAMP. VI - Determination of Market Value under 2014 Policy; 13. Market Value of land and SoR: (a) Land Allotment Committee may normally take into account the highest of the factors mentioned herein below to determine the latest market value of Port land. In case the land allotment committee is not choosing the highest fact, the reasons for the same have to be recorded in writing. (i) State Government's ready reckoner of land values in the area, if available for similar classification/activities. (ii) Highest rate o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the parties in the light of the provisions of the said Act and of the Land Policies of 2010 and 2014, following broad issues arise for determination before this Court- (a) Whether the Land Policies issued by the Ministry of Shipping, Government of India, in the year 2010 and in the year 2014 are legal and valid? (b) Whether the order dated 25.3.2011 passed by the TAMP framing SoR for the three consecutive slabs from July 1999 to 31st December 2003, 1st January 2004 to 31st December 2008 and 1st January 2009 to 31st December 2013 based on the proposal of the KPT dated 19.4.2010 is legal and valid? (c) Whether the order dated 13.1.2014 passed by the TAMP framing SoR for the period from 1.1.2014 to 31.12.2018 based on the proposal of KPT dated 26.6.2014 is legal and valid? (d) Whether the concerned petitioners are entitled to claim renewal of their respective leases? Re: Land Policies of 2010 and 2014:- 31. As regards challenge to the Land Policy of 2010 and the Land Policy of 2014, it may be stated that the petitioners PSL, Kesar Terminals and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Tankers' Association and AVEAN have sought prayer to set aside the same in their respecti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Both the policies have been issued by the Ministry of Shipping after undergoing systematic process of consultation and after considering the objections/suggestions of the stakeholders. In both the Policies detailed guidelines have been prescribed with regard to the fresh allotment of land, renewal of existing land leases, for determination of market value of lands and scale of rates, apart from general guidelines applicable to the existing and new leases. Merely because the land allotment Committee constituted as per the said guidelines has been empowered to take into account the highest of the applicable factors mentioned in the relevant clauses, to determine the latest market value of the port land, the entire policy could not be termed as ambiguous, arbitrary or illegal. It is also pertinent to note that based on the recommendations of the Land Allotment Committee, the Port Trust is required to make proposal to the TAMP for fixing the SoR and the TAMP is required to notify the latest SoR of the land after following the due process of consultation with the stakeholders, as stated in Clause 6.3 and Clause 13 of the Policies of 2010 and 2014 respectively. None of the Advocates for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsidering the parameters given in the Land Policy Guidelines had accepted the market value of the land assessed by the approved Valuer. The Committee thereafter recommended sector-wise/sub-sector-wise lease rentals for three consecutive slabs i.e. July 1999 to 31st December, 2003, 1st January 2004 to 31st December 2008 and 1st January 2009 to 31st December 2013 for the categories A to G. The Board of Trustees of KPT had also recommended the said market rate/schedule of rates and lease rentals as recommended by the Committee and forwarded the same to the TAMP for its approval. As stated by the TAMP in its order, the TAMP in accordance with the consultative procedure prescribed, had forwarded the proposal of the KPT to the concerned user associations for their comments. The comments of user association as and when received were forwarded to the KPT for its remarks and the KPT had responded to the said comments. The TAMP after preliminary scrutiny of the proposal had sought additional information/clarification from the KPT, which were furnished by the KPT, the details of which have been narrated in the Tabular Form in the TAMP order of 2011. It appears that a joint hearing of the KPT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y D1 Plots directly abutting on NH8A 37.80 48.60 100.20 D2 Plots abutting on 1st 30 meter road parallel to NH8A 33.60 43.20 89.40 D3 Plots abutting on 2nd 30 meter road parallel to NH8A 32.40 41.40 85.20 E Land within the docks 67.80 87.60 180.60 F Land west of railway siding leading to Kandla Free Trade Zone and up to crossing of railway line F1 Plots situated on SEZ side from Kandla Railway Station 37.80 48.60 100.20 F2 Plots situated on Ahmedabad side from Kandla Railway Station 36.00 46.20 94.80 G Land of Liquid St ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sted to furnish comments on the written statements made by BPCL, HPCL, GCCI, IFFCO, and KPKS. The KPT also subsequently requested to furnish comments received from Kandla Liquid Tank Terminal Association vide its letter dated 3.9.2014, which was responded by the KPT vide its letter dated 12.9.2014. The TAMP considering the totality of information/material collected during the hearing of the case, passed a detailed order on 4.12.2014 approving the schedule of market value of the land and Reserve price in terms of the lease rents for lease of Kandla lands belonging to KPT as per the Annexure-II annexed to the said order. The TAMP approved the schedule of rate structure making it effective from 1.1.2014 to 31.12.2018. The said Schedule of rates in Tabular Form is reproduced as under:- Schedule of Market Value of land and reserve price for Kandla land of Kandla Port Trust:- Sr. No. Description of category Market Value of land on 1.1.2014 Reserve price in terms of lease rent @ 6% of market value of land w.e.f. 1.1.2014 A Land having water front and upto half mile from the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ks G1 Land situated from Eastern Bank of Kandla Creek to Western Bank of Nakti Creek 15086.13 905.17 G2 Land from West side of Nakti Creek to Kharirohar having existing Oil Terminals of IOCL, HPCL and BPCL 9959.89 597.59 37. The aforesaid orders of 2011 and 2014 of the TAMP have been assailed by the learned Advocates for the petitioners on various grounds. The main grievance of the petitioners is that the determination of market value as proposed by the KPT and accepted by the TAMP was arbitrary and dehors the Land Policy Guidelines issued by the Government. The same have been assailed also on the ground that the KPT could not have proposed the categorization/re-categorization of the lands on the basis of use, and the TAMP should not have accepted the same in toto for the purpose of fixing the scale of rates under Section 49 of the said Act. The challenge is also made to the said orders of TAMP on the ground that the TAMP had accepted the proposal of KPT to give retrospective effect to the SoR with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... provided that every major port shall have a land use plan covering the entire land owned and/or managed by the Port. Such plans have to be approved by the Board and a copy thereof has to be forwarded to the Government. Thus, the combined reading of the provisions contained in Section 49 of the Act and the said Clauses of the land policies, it emerges that use of the land and the purposes for which the land of the port would be used are the material considerations for the purposes of fixing scale of rates. It may be further noted that the market value of the land and the scale of rates to be recommended by the Port Trust to the TAMP have to be in consonance with the relevant directions given by the Central Government in the respective land policies. Clause 6.3(1)(e) of the Policy of 2010 provided that SoR should vary in accordance with the end use as reflected in the land use plan. Sub-clause (f) of the said Clause further provided that insofar as fixing of SoR for port land is concerned, the TAMP shall have the jurisdiction for any land both within the customs bound area and outside it as long as the land is used exclusively for Port related activity. The SoR for all the land of Ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s till these petitions were filed in the years 2014-15 onwards. 41. Similar proposal was made by the KPT vide letter dated 23.4.2014 in the light of the policy of 2014. The KPT had submitted the said proposal for the valuation of land for the various categories of Kandla lands, i.e. A to G categories considered by the Land Valuation Committee. In the said proposal, the KPT had further categorized the Category-G into subcategories G-1 and G-2, in respect of which the TAMP had raised queries and the KPT had responded to the said queries. In this regard, the TAMP in its impugned order dated 13.11.2014 has observed in Paragraph ll(viii)(c) as under:- 11.(vii)(c)- xxx With reference to the objection raised by users about new sub categorization G-1 and G-2 under category G, proposed in the current proposal as against a single category G in the land Order, the KPT has sought to clarify that the rates are to be fixed considering purpose also. So, all lessees, who have been allotted the land for Liquid Tanks have been categorized under G-1 G-2 categories irrespective of distance. The KPT has reported that CI category has now been shifted as G-2 from 1.1.2014 as per the valuation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate was arbitrary and irrational. As per the policy, the market value of the land was to be determined on the basis of highest accepted bid of the land, and the KPT had based its valuation relying on the 2005 tender submitted by the petitioner IMC for the purpose of making proposal to the TAMP, however, the bids received by the KPT pursuant to the 2005 tender were not finalized and the said tender was subsequently cancelled as the payment model under the 2005 tender was changed from premium-cum-lease rent structure , which was followed earlier to single lump sum consideration in the form of a higher premium and token Re. 1/- lease structure . Therefore, according to them, the said bid having not been accepted by the KPT, it could not have been treated as the highest accepted bid of the land for the purpose of making proposal to the TAMP. According to them, even under the Policy of 2014, the use of the land being not relevant factor, the only factor which could have been accepted was the highest accepted tender amount, and in absence of such highest accepted tender amount, the proposal of KPT could not have been accepted by the TAMP for determining the market value and in turn the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... review in the matter of determination of tariff by the State Commission and applicability of principles of natural justice. It was held inter alia that price fixation is in the nature of a legislative action, and no rule of natural justice is applicable, unless statute itself provided for the same and the power of judicial review could hardly be invoked in interfering such fixation. 49. In yet one more judgment in case of Rayalaseema Paper Mills Ltd. Vs. State of A.P., reported in 2003 (1) SCC 341, the Supreme Court while examining the scope of judicial scrutiny in the matters of price fixation governed by the statutory provisions, observed as under:- 15. This Court was examining the scope of judicial scrutiny in the matters of price fixation where it was governed by statutory provisions. The scope of judicial scrutiny would be far less where the price fixation is not governed by the statute or a statutory order. Where the legislature has prescribed the factors which should be taken into consideration and which should guide the determination of price, the courts would examine whether the considerations for fixing the price mentioned in the statute or the statutory order hav ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... said Act. The Policy of 2010 as well as the subsequent policy of 2014 issued under Section 111 of the said Act had laid down the factors to be taken into consideration and the procedure to be followed for the purpose of determining the market value and the scale of rates. So far as the Policy of 2010 is concerned, Clause 6.3 provided that the SoR for port land will be recommended to the TAMP by a Committee as decided by the Board headed by the Chairman of the Port Trust. The said Committee may take into account the applicable factors from amongst the factors mentioned therein to determine the market value of the port land. One of the factors mentioned therein was the highest accepted tender of port land for similar transactions. The other factor was the rate arrived at by an approved valuer appointed for the purpose by the port. It was stated therein that the scale of rates shall be arrived at, taking 6% of the market value as the rent per annum. It also provided that the SoR should vary in accordance with the purpose of land use. In the light of the said provisions contained in the Policy of 2010, if the proposal made by the KPT in its letter dated 19.4.2010, as referred by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s A to G, and accordingly the KPT had sought approval of the same from the TAMP. The summary of the recommendations of land valuation committee and the proposal of the KPT based on the said recommendations has been reproduced by the TAMP in its order dated 13.11.2014. The said proposal of the KPT has been elaborately discussed and considered, and after having been satisfied, has been accepted by the TAMP. 54. It is pertinent to note that on both the occasion, the KPT had made its proposals on the basis of the rates arrived by the approved valuer appointed for the purpose by the port. The said reports of the valuers were approved by the land valuation committee and the Board of Trustees of KPT, as contemplated in both the policy guidelines. The said policy guidelines do not mandate a specific preference to any particular method out of the methods prescribed in the respective clauses for determination of the market value and the SoR. Hence, the KPT was absolutely justified in relying upon the rates arrived at by the approved valuers on both the occasions. As stated in the TAMP order of 2011, the approved valuer had after considering the basic rates had derived the market rates for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion, it is not permissible for the Court to go into the minute details of the factors considered by the statutory authority and substitute its own decision in place of the decision taken by the authority constituted under the Act. 56. There could not be any disagreement to the proposition of law laid down by the Supreme Court in case of M/s. Dwarkadas Marfatia and Sons Vs. Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay, reported in (1989) 3 SCC 293 relied upon by the learned Advocates for the petitioners to the effect that the public body even while dealing with its tenants must act in public interest and an infraction of their duty is amenable to examination either in civil suit or in writ jurisdiction. Every action of the State or as instrumentality of the State, must be informed by reason and the actions uninformed by reason may be questioned as arbitrary in the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, it has been further observed in the said judgment that there is always a presumption that a governmental action is reasonable and in public interest. It is for the party challenging its validity to show that the action is unreasonable, arbitrary or contrary ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bstituted is a better one. Learned Addl. Solicitor General, in our opinion, is therefore right in contending that the appellant should not be allowed to contend that the decision of the Bombay Port Trust to allot the plot to the major holder is not one of the feasible means of achieving the objectives of development. It was not open to the appellant to contend that the Bombay Port Trust could have framed a better policy in a way in which both the goals, development and non-eviction of existing tenants, could have been achieved. 57. There is also no merit in the submission of the learned Advocate for the petitioners that during the period of lease, the landlord i.e. KPT which is an instrumentality of State, could not require the petitioners to pay the rent higher than what was agreed between them. As held by Supreme Court in case of NSSO Vs. Champa Properties Limited, reported in (2009) 14 SCC 451, where the contract prescribes a rent for the period of lease, the same being agreed rent, it is binding on the parties. If the lease provides for revision of rents periodically and specifies the method and manner of revision, such revised rent would also be the agreed rent. It has bee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e said market value for framing the SoR under Section 49 of the said Act. Such fixation did not suffer from vice of arbitrariness or from procedural impropriety. Re: Retrospectivity;- 60. This takes the Court to the next pivotal question as to whether the KPT could have proposed and the TAMP could have accepted the said proposal of giving retrospective effect to the SoR fixed by the TAMP i.e. making them effective for three consecutive slabs from July 1999 to 31.12.2003, 1.1.2004 to 31.12.2008, and 1.1.2009 to 31.12.2013 as per the impugned order dated 25.3.2011. The learned Sr. Advocate Mr. Mihir Joshi for the KPT, had sought to submit that the liability i.e. 6% of the market value, the methodology i.e. on the basis of the market value, and the periodicity i.e. every five years was already fixed and imposed, and the only component remaining was the determination of market value and the scale of rates by the TAMP after considering the views of stake holders. Therefore, according to him, the obligation to pay at the revised rates every five years, and not to pay as and when quantified at varying period of time, was already existing. In any case, he submitted that quantificat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the letter of allotment without execution of the lease deed, as has been done in case of SCA No. 2535 of 2017. In the said case the letter of allotment was issued on 27.10.1995 in favour of M/s. Unit Storage and Tankers Terminals Ltd., the predecessor of the petitioner IMC. The said allotment was subject to the terms and conditions stipulated in its annexure. One of the conditions as mentioned in Clause 9 thereof was that the ground rent fixed for plot shall be revised/enhanced/refixed at the option of the lessor at the end of every five years on or after 1st January. The ground rent will be revised on the basis of market value prevailing at the time of revision of ground rent. The allottee shall pay the ground rent at the revised rate from the date of revision. In other cases, where the lease deeds were executed like in case of SCA No. 2538 of 2017 filed by IMC, the Clause 7 of the lease deed executed by the KPT in favour of M/s. Indian Molasses Company, stipulated that the ground rent at the option of the lessor, be revised and refixed at the end of every ten years, subject to the condition that the ground rent so refixed at the end of first ten years shall not exceed the doubl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ive council of a University constituted under the Maharishi Dayanand University Act, could have given retrospective effect or retroactive operation, had held that in absence of any provision contained in the legislative Act, a delegatee cannot make a delegated legislation with retrospective effect. 64. In case of Mahabir Vegetable Oils (P) Ltd. and Anr. Vs. State of Haryana and Ors., reported in (2006) 3 SCC 620 also it has been held that it is beyond any cavil that a subordinate legislation can be given a retrospective effect and retroactive operation, if any power in this behalf is contained in the main Act. 65. The Supreme Court in case of J. Jayalalithaa and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and Ors., reported in (2014) 2 SCC 401, reiterated the proposition of law that when the statute provides for a particular procedure, the authority has to follow the same and cannot be permitted to act in contravention of the same. In other words where a statute requires to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way and not contrary to it at all. Other methods or mode of performance are impliedly and necessarily forbidden. The said settled legal proposition is ba ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 2.4.2008 had directed the KPT to formulate suitable revision proposal for Kandla land, and in the said backdrop, the KPT on 19.4.2010 submitted the proposal for revision of rate structure. From the said observation itself it clearly transpires that there was absolutely lethargic and a very lackadaisical approach on the part of the KPT in not sending the proposal for revision of SoR for about nine years. 68. As rightly submitted by the learned Advocates for the petitioners the party cannot be permitted to take undue advantage of its own wrong. At this juncture, it would apposite to refer the Latin maxim - Commodum ex injuria sua nemo habere debet meaning thereby, no party can take undue advantage of its own wrong. The Supreme Court in case of Kusheshwar Prasad Singh Vs. State of Bihar and Ors., reported in (2007) 11 SCC 447, has held that man cannot be permitted to take undue and unfair advantage of his own wrong to be favourable in the interpretation of law. He who prevents a thing from being done shall not avail himself of the non-performance he has occasioned. Hence, if the KPT had failed to make proposal on time as required under the lease deed or under the Land Polici ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the Central Government from time to time under Section 111 of the said Act, the renewals of leases were to be governed by the relevant clauses of the said Policies, relating to the lands within the customs bonded area and the lands falling outside the customs bonded area. It is trite to say that renewal of lease cannot be claimed by the lessee as a matter of right, inasmuch as the primary requirement for considering the request for renewals would be the existence of a valid lease in favour of the lessee and that there should not be any outstanding dues payable by the lessees. Out of the petitioners herein, the petitioner IMC of SCA No. 2538 of 2017, the petitioner IOC in SCA No. 13409 of 2014, the petitioner Tankers' Association in SCA No. 10306 of 2015, the petitioner Avean in SCA No. 2905 of 2015, the petitioner Laxmi Motors in SCA No. 16225 of 2013, the petitioner IFFCO in SCA 673 of 2014 and SCA No. 2607 of 2012 and the petitioner Kesar Terminals in SCA No. 11497 of 2015, No. 10892 of 2016, No. 10891 of 2016 and No. 10730 of 2016, have prayed for the renewal of their respective leases. 71. Before examining the individual case of the petitioners for renewal, it may ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and 19 of the case are extracted below:- 18. We fully agree with the High Court and the first appellate court below that on expiry of period of lease, mere acceptance of rent for the subsequent months in which the lessee continued to occupy the lease premises cannot be said to be a conduct signifying assent to the continuance of the lease even after expiry of lease period. To the legal notice seeking renewal of lease, the lessor gave no reply. The agreement of renewal contained in clause (7) read with clause (9) required fulfillment of two conditions: first, the exercise of option of renewal by the lessee before the expiry of original period of lease and second, fixation of terms and conditions for the renewed period of lease by mutual consent and in absence thereof through the mediation of local mukhia or panchas of the village. The aforesaid renewal clauses (7) and (9) in the agreement of lease clearly fell within the expression agreement to the contrary used in Section 116 of the Transfer of Property Act. Under the aforesaid clauses option to seek renewal was to be exercised before expiry of the lease and on specified conditions. 19. The lessor in the present case ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anti Prasad Devi, Sarup Singh Gupta and Ashoka Marketing Ltd. cases (supra), there cannot be an automatic renewal of lease in favour of the original lessee once it stands terminated by efflux of time and also by issuing notice terminating the lease. Merely accepting the amount towards the rent by the office of the DDA after expiry of the lease period shall not be construed as renewal of lease of the premises in question, in favour of the original lessee, for another period of 20 years as contended by the respondent. 73. Applying the afore-stated position of law to the facts of the present cases, let us examine the individual case of the petitioners who have claimed renewal of their leases. In case of M/s. IMC in SCA No. 2538 of 2017, it appears that the petitioner had requested the KPT to renew the lease deed in accordance with the Clause-8 of the lease deed by its letter dated 15.5.2008, however, the said request appears to have been declined by the KPT vide the letter dated 8th October, 2013 on the ground that the land was required for KPT's own use. Thereafter the KPT had stated vide the letter dated 16.3.2015 that the request of the petitioner to renew the lease deed wo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be noted that the duration of the lease in respect of some of the plots has already expired, whereas the lease is still continuing and is expiring in the year 2020 and 2023 in respect of two plots. Hence, it will be open for the IOC to make necessary application for renewal of lease in respect of those two plots whose lease period has not expired and it will be open for the KPT to decide the same in accordance with law, however, no direction to renew the lease in respect of the plots whose term has already expired, could be issued as prayed for. 75. In case of SCA No. 10306 of 2015 filed by the petitioner Tankers' Association, there was no clause for renewal in the letter of allotment issued on 24.9.21982. The term of the lease has also expired in 2013. Hence, the petitioner who is unauthorized occupant after the expiry of lease period could not seek as a matter of right the direction to renew the lease. 76. In case of SCA No. 16225 of 2013 filed by Laxmi Motors, it appears that the KPT had already initiated action under the Public Premises Act, treating it to be an unauthorized occupant on the expiry of lease period in 2013. The eviction order was also passed by the Esta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s per Clause 5.2.1.2 of 2004 Policy, the port was empowered to renew the lease in favour of existing lessee at terms to be approved by the Board without public auction/tender. However, the said submission cannot be accepted. As per the said clause relied upon by the learned Advocate, if the option for renewal was not provided in the lease agreement, the port at its discretion could decide to grant a fresh lease in favour of the existing lessee at the terms to be approved by the Board without public auction/tender. In the instant case, there was no option in the lease deed for renewal, and as per the KPT's reply it was decided by way of policy to resort to public auction for allotment of plots. The discretionary decision of the KPT not to renew the lease being in consonance with the land policy of 2004 and later policies, no direction to renew the lease of the petitioner could be given as prayed for. FINAL CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER;- 80. The upshot of the aforesaid discussions and findings may be concluded as under:- (i) The Land Policies of 2010 and 2014 in respect of the Port lands issued by the Central Government under Section 111 of the MPT Act, are legal, valid and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) Limited; Special Civil Application No. 372 of 2016 filed by M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited; Special Civil Application No. 16225 of 2013 filed by M/s. Laxmi Motors; and Special Civil Application No. 10306 of 2015 filed by The Tanker Owners Operations Association: The impugned order dated 25.3.2011 passed by the TAMP and published vide the Notification dated 11.5.2011 under Section 49 of the Major Port Trusts Act, is partly set aside to the extent it approves the SoR with retrospective effect from July 1999. The said order to the extent it approves the SoR for the period from 1.1.2009 to 31.12.2013 is confirmed. The demand Notices, if any, issued against the petitioners based on the said order shall stand set aside, however, the KPT shall be at liberty to issue fresh demand Notices. Rest of the prayers made in each of the petitions are rejected. The petitions stand partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. (II) Special Civil Application Nos. 2535 of 2017, 2536 of 2017 filed by M/s. IMC Limited; Special Civil Application No. 2537 of 2017 filed by M/s. JRE Tank Terminals Private Limited; Special Civil Application Nos. 11497 of 2015, 10730 of 2016, 10891 of 2016, 1089 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
