Dismissed

Amar Iron Udyog Pvt. Ltd. v. the Board of Trustees of the Port of Mumbai

Bombay HC12 Sept 2012WP/2127/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the Board's decision to alter their vessel's beaching plot after initially allotting a plot for larger vessels and later assigning one for smaller vessels. The Court dismissed the writ petition, noting the change complied with tonnage guidelines and no vested right was prejudiced.

What did the court decide?

The petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.

Amar Iron Udyog Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Board of Trustees of the… — Landlord and Tenant | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

1 of 6 WP(L).1639.2012

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION (LODGING) NO.1639 OF 2012

¶4

Amar Iron Udyog Private Limited Petitioner versus The Board of Trustees of the Port of Mumbai Respondent

¶5

Respondent

¶6

Mr.Sanjay Kantawala i/by Brijesh Pathak for Petitioner. Mr.U.J.Makhija i/by Motiwala & Co. for Respondent.

¶7

CORAM : DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD AND A.A.SAYED, JJ.

¶8

DATE : 12 September 2012

¶9

PC :

¶10

The Petitioner has sought directions against The Board of Trustees of the Port of Mumbai (the BPT') restraining it from granting beaching or breaking permission to any other vessel in respect of plot no.10 of Lakri Bunder South (LBS-10') which was originally allotted to the Petitioner under the guidelines of BPT.. The Petitioner has been allotted another plot, LBS-12, which under administrative guidelines is to be used for vessels with a Light Displacement Tonnage (`LDT') of less than 3,000 M.Ts. The LDT of the Petitioner's vessel is 2,143 M.Ts. The plot originally allotted to the Petitioner (LBS-10) is under the guidelines to be allotted to vessels with an LDT above 3,000 M.Ts..

¶11

The Vessel in question, m.v.Kinship Prosperity, was acquired by the Petitioner in pursuance of an order of a learned Single Judge of

¶12

2 of 6 WP(L).1639.2012

¶13

this Court of 4 May 2012 in an Admiralty suit. The vessel had been arrested in pursuance of the orders of the Court in the exercise of the admiralty jurisdiction on 23 August 2010. The vessel was noticed to be in a hazardous condition and was lying at J-2 anchorage of Mumbai harbour since 15 December 2009. The vessel started taking in water which the BPT Fire Brigade was attempting to control and eventually the vessel was found to be listing.

¶14

In the affidavit filed by the BPT, it has been stated that in order to ensure that the vessel did not hamper shipping lines, BPT used private tugs for beaching the vessel in March 2012. By an order of a learned Single Judge in the admiralty jurisdiction, BPT was directed to allot a plot to the purchaser of the vessel for beaching and breaking and the purchaser furnished an undertaking to pay the breaking charges. The Petitioner paid an amount of Rs.16.32 lakhs to BPT on 6 June 2012.

¶15

Originally the website of BPT on 7 June 2012 showed that the vessel which had been acquired by the Petitioner was allotted a plot, LBS-10, as per the advise of the Deputy Conservator in a letter dated 13 March 2012. The grievance of the Petitioner is that on 11 June 2012, the website showed the allotment of another plot, LBS-12, to the Petitioner and the vessel was shown immediately behind another vessel, m.v. Sandino Bay, which was being broken. In the original allotment at LBS-10 to the vessel of the Petitioner was shown to be behind a vessel by the name of m.v. Freedom. The Petitioner was informed by a letter dated 25 June 2012 of the circumstances in which

¶16

3 of 6 WP(L).1639.2012

¶17

the allotment of plot LBS-10 was altered to LBS-12. The reasons which have been disclosed to the Petitioner are as follows :

¶18

"2. Vide letter dated 04.6.2012, you had informed that your vessel will be prone to drift towards Mazgaon in heavy weather condition and you had only two options either to demolish her at the present location at LBS-10 or shift her to LBS-2 and requested for permission to demolish her at LBS-10 or LBS-2. Further, your representative had also informed that the vessel may sink due to severely damaged bottom by shifting of the vessel from her present position. Considering all these aspects, the vessel was initially permitted to be beached at LBS-10.

¶19

Pursuant to issuance of orders for beaching of the vessel at LBS-10, M/s.Bansal Infracon Ltd. having their vessel, `M.V.Freedom' under breaking at LBS-10 protested against the beaching of vessel, M.V.KINSHIP PROSPERITY, and informed that no other vessel can be beached behind their vessel till completion of 80% of the breaking of their vessel, as per the norms.

¶20

The matter was re-examined and a report was called from Dy. Traffic Manager, Bunders, who after inspection of the plots and positioning of the vessels, informed that vessel M.V.KINSHIP PROSPERITY was equidistant from the plot Nos.LBS-10, LBS-11 and LBS-12 and front end of the Vessel was pointed towards Plot No.LBS-12. Plot LBS-12 is earmarked for vessels having LDT less than 3,000 MT and your vessel is having LDT of 2143 MT.

¶21

The matter was discussed with the Harbour Master and considering all the aspects of safe beaching, orders were issued for beaching of vessel M.V.KINSHIP PROSPERITY at LBS-12. A copy of the said order was also forwarded to you through Shed Superintendent, Lakri Bunder. However, your representative refused to accept the letter. It has also

¶22

4 of 6 WP(L).1639.2012

¶23

been reported by the Shed Supdt., Lakri Bunder on 13.06.12 that the vessel has already been beached at LBS-12, behind M.V.Sandino Bay on 09.06.2012."

¶24

An affidavit-in-reply has been filed by the Assistant Traffic Manager of the First Respondent.

¶25

The submission of the Petitioner is that once an allotment of a plot, LBS-10, was made to the Petitioner, there was no justification to change the allotment. The grievance is that this allotment appears to have been changed at the behest of the owners of m.v.Freedom since another vessel belonging to them is to be brought in for the purposes of ship breaking. Consequently, it has been urged that once the payment was made by the Petitioner and a plot was allotted, there was no justification to change that arrangement.

¶26

A circular has been issued by the BPT on 11 March 2010. The circular provides for the allotment of plots for ship breaking on the basis of Light Displacement Tonnage (`LDT'). The circular provides that plot LBS-12 is earmarked for vessels with an LDT of up to 3,000 M.T.. Plots LBS-1 to 10 are to be alloted to vessels with an LDT above 3,000 M.T.. It is common ground that the LDT of the vessel belonging to the Petitioner is 2,143 M.T.. The affidavit-in-reply explains that the charges which are collected for beaching and breaking are the same irrespective of the plot since charges are based on the LDT of the vessel. Hence, the plot (LBS-10) which was allotted to the Petitioner earlier is meant for vessels with an LDT in excess of 3,000 M.Ts..

¶27

5 of 6 WP(L).1639.2012

¶28

We are not inclined to entertain this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for several reasons. Firstly, the plot which was originally allotted to the petitioner, LBS-10, is for vessels of an LDT above 3,000 M.T; whereas, the LDT of the vessel of the Petitioner is admittedly 2,143 M.T.. Secondly, the circular which lays down the guidelines stipulates that if an applicant is in possession of a plot, he would be allowed to beach his next vessel behind the existing vessel undergoing breaking, at his request, provided, the beaching application complete in all respects of the vessel is submitted prior to the completion of 80% of the breaking of the existing vessel at that plot. The BPT has also reserved its right to beach any vessel at any plot, without assigning any reason. The circular is not challenged. Thirdly, m.v. Freedom, which is being broken at LBS-10 has a tonnage of 9,036 M.T.. Immediately behind that vessel is m.v.Norsul Tubarao which was beached on 29 June 2012 with a tonnage of 6,513 M.T.. Both the vessels have a tonnage in excess of 3,000 M.T.. Hence, both the existing vessel undergoing breaking at LBS-10 and the vessel which is next in line are above an LDT of 3,000 M.T. which is in accordance with the guidelines. Finally, it must be noted that no prejudice is shown to the Petitioner. The affidavit-in-reply states that the existing vessel on LBS-12 is being broken and the probable date of completion is 3 October 2012. On the other hand, the estimated date of completion of breaking of the vessel on LBS-10 is 15 January 2013. No vested right of the Petitioner has been affected. The Petitioner has been allotted an alternate plot which is suitable to the size of the vessel belonging to it.

¶29

6 of 6 WP(L).1639.2012

¶30

In these circumstances, it would not be possible for us to exercise the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to interfere with an administrative determination of the BPT, which is not found to be arbitrary or contrary to the applicable guidelines. It is well settled that guidelines of an administrative nature may give rise to a plea of discrimination and a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. However, for the reasons which we have indicated above, we do not find that a sustainable case on that basis has been made out.

¶31

The petition shall accordingly stand dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶32

(DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J.)

¶33

(A.A.SAYED, J.)

¶34

MST

Amar Iron Udyog Pvt. Ltd. v. the Board of Trustees of the Port of Mumbai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amar Iron Udyog Pvt. Ltd. v. the Board of Trustees of the Port of Mumbai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kai. Vasantrao Naik Samajik Shaikshanik Krida Va Bahuddeshiya Sanstha, Akkalkot, Solapur Vs the Director, Vjnt, Obc and Special Backward Communities Welfare and Ors.

Kai. Vasantrao Naik Samajik Shaikshanik Krida Va Bahuddeshiya Sanstha, Akkalkot, Solapur Vs the Director, Vjnt, Obc and Special Backward Communities Welfare and Ors.

Dattajirao Khanwilkar Eduation Trust, through Chairman Shri. Amar Madhukar Warde Vs Education Officer (Primary), Raigad Zilla Parishad, Alibaug and Ors.

Nenshi Monji and 4 Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and 4 Ors.

Vikas Shikshan Sanstha, through President and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, School Education Dept and Ors.

Ms. Sandhya Laxman Ghosalkar Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, School Education Dept and Ors.