Dismissed

Marine Engineering and Trade Services v. Union of India and Ors.

Calcutta HC20 May 2022WPA/88/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petitioner sought permission to continue occupying a shed pending license renewal despite expired license and outstanding dues. Court held no public law element existed, license expired, and petitioner owed money, dismissing the petition.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to remove personnel and machinery from jetty forthwith; Writ Petition dismissed.

Marine Engineering and Trade Services Vs Union of… — Service and Employment | Calcutta HC (2022)

¶1

20.05.2022 Circuit Bench at Port Blair Item No.1 AP

¶2

HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA IN THE CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ANDAMAN & NICOBAR ISLANDS

¶3

WPA 88 of 2022

¶4

MARINE ENGINEERING AND TRADE SERVICES VS.

¶5

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

¶6

(Through Video Conference)

¶7

Mr. Kishore Dutta, Senior Advocate Mr. Supriyo Chattopadhyay

¶8

... For the Petitioner.

¶9

Mr. Deep Chaim Kabir Mr. S. Ajith Prasad Mr. Mazhar Hossain Chowdhury

¶10

... For the Respondent Nos.3 to 5.

¶11

Supplementary affidavit and affidavit of service filed by the writ petitioner is taken on record.

¶12

The writ application has been listed before this Court on urgency indicated.

¶13

It appears that the present writ petition being WPA 88 of 2022, has been filed seeking a direction upon the respondent No.4, the Chief Port Administrator, Port Management Board (PMB), Phoenix Bay, Port Blair, to permit the writ petitioner to occupy and utilize the Shed No.2 at PMB Jetty, Junglighat up to 30^th November 2022.

¶14

The brief facts of the case are that the writ petitioner was a licensee in respect of the Shed No.2 at PMB Jetty, Junglighat, since 2016. The license was

¶15

¶16

renewed from time to time and expired on 30^th September 2021. An application for extension of license is pending. The writ petitioner prays that pending extension of his license, he should be allowed to continue to work at Shed No.2, particularly in the light of the fact that two ships one belonging to the Indian Navy, and the other to the Indian Coast Guard, are being repaired at the said jetty.

¶17

Mr. Kabir, learned advocate appearing for the respondents, submits that there are outstanding dues totaling to about Rs.2,17,69,000/-. Such dues includes penal charges and other levies on the writ petitioner.

¶18

The charges and application of penal charges is, however, disputed by Mr. Kishore Dutta, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner.

¶19

This Court notes that admittedly, there are dues of the PMB are outstanding and the writ petitioner is liable for the same. The quantum is however disputed. The writ petitioner did not and does not have any right, title or interest to continue to occupy the said Shed No.2 after expiry of the license and non-renewal thereof and could not have continued to occupy the jetty.

¶20

Despite this, the writ petitioner continues to occupy the said jetty as on date even without a valid license and with huge outstanding dues to the PMB.

¶21

The plea that the writ petitioner is repairing the ships of the Indian Navy and Coast Guard does not

¶22

¶23

create any equity in his favour and cannot be imposed on the Port Authorities indefinitely as was done previously. The dues are continuously accumulating apart from those already outstanding. The PMB is losing money that belongs to the public exchequer.

¶24

In that view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to grant any relief to the writ petitioner, and the Board is directed to take all necessary steps that they are entitled to under the license, to remove the writ petitioner, his men, agents, machineries and assignees from the jetty forthwith.

¶25

The aforesaid order is passed also in view of the fact that the dispute between the writ petitioner and the respondent No.4, does not have any public law element, and is purely in the realm of private contract between the petitioner and the port authorities. The writ petition even otherwise is not maintainable.

¶26

Needless to mention, in the event the writ petitioner pays up all the outstanding dues as claimed, the PMB may in its discretion, in the facts of the case, and as provided for under the Rules applicable in this regard, allow the writ petitioner to function at the said jetty to carry out his businesses.

¶27

In that view of the matter the writ petition being WPA 88 of 2022 shall stand dismissed.

¶28

It is noted with surprise that despite repeated request from the Registry of Circuit Bench at Port Blair

¶29

¶30

to the Registry of the Principal Bench, the records of the case had not been transmitted to the Circuit Bench, since after filing of the writ petitioner. Repeated request have been made by the Registry of the Circuit Bench, inter alia on the directions of the Hon’ble Judge at Circuit Bench at Port Blair.

¶31

The Registrar General of this Court shall submit a report before this Court on 9^th June 2022, as to the reasons for which the files have not been transmitted to the Circuit Bench at Port Blair. Since the filing of the writ petition, all requests made by the Registry of the Bench at Port Blair shall be annexed to the report. Any other relevant material and orders of this Court shall also be produced by the Registrar General.

¶32

The directions on the Registrar General shall be placed for compliance, notwithstanding the dismissal of the writ petition and the counsel for the parties may appear on the next date to assist this Court.

¶33

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶34

All parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.

¶35

(Rajasekhar Mantha, J.)

Marine Engineering and Trade Services v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Marine Engineering and Trade Services v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Culver Max Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. Formerly Known as Sony Pictures Networks India Pvt. Ltd. Vs National Company Law Tribunal, Kolkata and Anr.

Amitava De Bhowmick Vs the State of West Bengal and Ors.

Amitava De Bhowmick Vs the State of West Bengal and Ors.

Vishambhar Saran and Anr. Vs Central Bank of India and Anr.

Sanjoy Saha and Ors. Vs Dilip Kumar Roy

Sabina Bibi Vs State & Ors.