National Association of container Freight stations Vs Line Referee and Revenue Divisional officer

¶1

W.P. Nos.27313 of 2022 & 30008 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Reserved on : 19.09.2025 Pronounced on : 23.09.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR

¶6

W.P. Nos.27313 of 2022 & 30008 of 2023 and WMP.No.26501 & 26504 of 2022

¶7

W.P.No.27313 of 2022 National Association of container Freight stations Represented by its Treasurer Chennai Chapter, BWC Towers, No.46/2,(37/2), 2nd Floor, North Beach Road 3rd Line, Clive Battery Chennai – 600 001 ... Petitioner

¶8

Versus

¶9

Line Referee and Revenue Divisional officer North Chennai Division, Gandhi Main Road Puzhal, Chennai - 600066.

¶10

Commissioner of police Greater Chennai Police No. 132, Commissioner Office Building EVK sampath Road Vepery, Chennai - 600007.

¶11

Deputy Commissioner of Police 37QJplus8MW, Rattan Bazaar Rd, Rattan Bazaar George Town, Chennai – 600001.

¶12

Assistant Commissioner of Police B-6 Port Marine Police Station Harbour, Parrys Corner, Chennai-600001.

¶13

1 / 15

¶14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶15

W.P. Nos.27313 of 2022 & 30008 of 2023

¶16

Tahsildar, Tondiarpet No.473 TH Road(Near Apollo Hospital opp to cholera hospital) Tondiarpet, Chennai - 600081.

¶17

6.Chennai and Kattupalli Port Contractors Committee No.164, M.S. Koil Street, Royapuram, Chennai - 600013.

¶18

All Sea Ports Trailer Owners Consortium Rep. by its President Mr.P.Gopinath No.48/10, Andiappan Gramani Street Royapuram, Chennai-600013 (R7 is impleaded as per the order dated 10.09.2025 in WMP.No.29625 of 2023 in WP.No.27313 of 2022)

¶19

.. Respondents

¶20

W.P.No.30008 of 2023

¶21

All Sea Ports Trailer Owners Consortium Rep. by its President Mr.P.Gopinath No.48/10, Andiappan Gramani Street Royapuram, Chennai-600013 ... Petitioner Versus

¶22

National Association of container Freight stations Represented by its Treasurer Chennai Chapter, BWC Towers, No.46/2,(37/2), 2nd Floor, North Beach Road 3rd Line, Clive Battery Chennai – 600 001

¶23

Sub Divisional Magistrate and Revenue Divisional Officer North Chennai, Tondiarpet, Chennai – 600 081.

¶24

3.The Commissioner of police Greater Chennai Police No. 132, Commissioner Office Building EVK sampath Road Vepery, Chennai - 600007.

¶25

3.The Deputy Commissioner of Police Rattan Bazaar Rd, Rattan Bazaar

¶26

2 / 15

¶27

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶28

W.P. Nos.27313 of 2022 & 30008 of 2023

¶29

George Town, Chennai - 600001.

¶30

4. Assistant Commissioner of Police B-6 Port Marine Police Station

¶31

Harbour, Parrys Corner, Chennai-600001

¶32

... Respondents

¶33

Prayer in WP.No.27313 of 2022: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records pertaining to the order passed by the Line Referee and Revenue Divisional Officer North Chennai Na.No. A2/2709/2022 on the file of the 1st Respondent dated 14.07.2022 and quash the same as illegal and unconstitutional and consequently direct the Respondent Nos. 2 3 and 4 to provide police protection to allow willing trailers to operate and to prevent the blockage of trailers drivers in route to and fro the sea ports as well as to maintain law and order at port areas.

¶34

Prayer in WP.No.30008 of 2023: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 2nd Respondent to implement the proceedings in Na.Ka.No.A2/2709/2022 recording the terms of settlement agreed dated 14.07.2022.

¶35

W.P.No.27313 of	2022
For Petitioner	: Mr.Sathish Parasan, Senior Counsel for Mr.Adarsh Ramanujan
For Respondents W.P.No.30008 of	: Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan for R2 to R6 Additional Public Prosecutor Mr.T.N.Rajagopalan for R7 2023
For Petitioner	: Mr.T.N.Rajagopalan
For Respondents	: Mr.Sathish Parasan, Senior Counsel for Mr.Adarsh Ramanujan for R1 Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan for R2 to R5 Additional Public Prosecutor

¶36

COMMON ORDER

¶37

Since the issue involved in these writ petitions relates to handling of the

¶38

trailers in the Port Trust, these writ petitions are clubbed, heard together and taken up

¶39

3 / 15

¶40

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶41

W.P. Nos.27313 of 2022 & 30008 of 2023

¶42

for final disposal by way of this common order.

¶43

The petitioner in WP.No.27313 of 2022 are responsible for handling the

¶44

goods in the Chennai Port Trust. The petitioner/the members of the National Association of Container Freight Stations (NACFS) rely upon the service of the trailer owners/drivers for the to and fro movement of containers in and out of CFS. The Trailer owners and drivers, through associations, used to illegally collude in the unilateral fixation of prices for the transport services as well as prevent members of the petitioner from increasing their private fleet of trailers from more than 20. These illegal collusive and anti-competitive practices were perpetuated and enforced by threatening and also actually engaging in strikes, including by the way of blocking the entry and exit to the ports and bringing the entire commerce to a standstill.

¶45

The petitioner approached the Competition Commission of India ('CCI'

¶46

in short) vide Case No.4 of 2018 on 20.07.2022, the CCI passed a final order holding that these actions of the trailer owners to be illegal and restrained them from engaging in such conduct in the future and further held that the rates for transportation etc., are matters to be dealt through individual negotiation between each member of the petitioner with the respective trailer owners and similarly, the trailer owners' association had no business in restricting the number of trailers that

¶47

4 / 15

¶48

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶49

W.P. Nos.27313 of 2022 & 30008 of 2023

¶50

petitioner's members can own. It was also held that the intervention of any other authority, such as the Port Trust/Authority to mediate would not immunize such illegal actions. It is the case of the petitioner that when the CCI has seized the matter, the respondent No.6 conducted similar anti-competitive practices by organizing a transport strike between 04.07.2022 to 07.07.2022 once again asking for unilateral carte blanche increases in rates etc. The petitioner sought for the strike to be called off since the CCI was seized of the matter, the respondent No.1/RDO intervened at the behest of the trailer owners associations without jurisdiction recorded and codified this illegal and anti-competitive conduct in the form of the order dated 14.07.2022. In the said order, the petitioner has been coerced into escalating the transport rate by 25% and other such onerous terms. Though the said order records as if the petitioner consented to the same, it is the contention of the petitioner that they have not consented for the same.

¶51

According to the petitioner, the impugned order is passed without any jurisdiction since the first respondent has no jurisdiction to intervene in private contract negotiations and the said intervention is without any legal basis in law, despite the order of the CCI came to be passed. Hence, challenges the order of the first respondent and also seeks for police protection.

¶52

5 / 15

¶53

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶54

W.P. Nos.27313 of 2022 & 30008 of 2023

¶55

The 7^th respondent/All Sea Ports Trailers Owners Consortium, Rep by

¶56

its President Mr.P.Gopinath was impleaded by order of this Court made in WMP.No.2965 of 2023 in WP.No.27313 of 2022 dated 10.09.2025. It is relevant to note that the said Consortium earlier in WMP.Nos.28033 & 29834 of 2022 has sought for impleadment. This Court by detailed order dated 24.02.2023 dismissed the petitions, however, in order to give quietus to the entire issue and also there was no serious objection from the other side, this Court vide order dated 10.09.2025 impleaded the 7^th respondent. The seventh respondent herein has filed a writ petition in WP.No.30008 of 2023 to implement the order of the RDO which is challenged in the above writ petition in WP.No.27313 of 2022. According to the petitioner in W.P.No.30008 of 2023, that order came to be passed on the basis of settlement arrived at the meeting held on 14.07.2022 and that order has not been implemented. Therefore, seeks for a direction.

¶57

The learned senior counsel for the petitioner in WP.No.27313 of 2022 submitted that the seventh respondent has no right, major trade unions are already before the CCI. CCI has passed a detailed order holding that the act of the trade union is nothing but illegal, coercive and anti-competitive practices and also held that in respect of fixation of prices for transportation etc., are matters to be dealt through individual negotiation between each member of the petitioner with the

¶58

6 / 15

¶59

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶60

W.P. Nos.27313 of 2022 & 30008 of 2023

¶61

respective trailer owner, and similarly, the trailer owners' association had no business in restricting the number of trailers that the petitioner's members can own. Such being the position, when the CCI has passed an order under the Competition Act, 2002, RDO passing an order as if there was a consent by the petitioner and directing to implement the order is clearly violation of the provisions of law. Hence, it is the contention of the learned senior counsel that hiring the trailers is purely contractual entered between two individuals and the association have no say to fix the prices for all the trailers. Therefore, would submit that the order impugned cannot be enforced and the CCI order will bind all other 10 associations since they were also members before the CCI. Now, only the seventh respondent Consortium alone has come before this Court and the others have not challenged the order of the CCI. Hence, the RDO has no business to enter the matter and pass any order directing the petitioner consortium to follow the order dated 14.07.2022.

¶62

Whereas, Mr.T.N.Rajagopalan, learned counsel for the seventh respondent/petitioner in WP.No.30008 of 2023 submitted that it was the practice among the petitioner association and other concerned association to enter amicable settlement in a peace meeting by the RDO and having agreed to certain terms now, they cannot go beyond that merely because CCI has passed order in favour of the petitioner. Hence, it is the contention of the petitioner that it involves livelihood of

¶63

7 / 15

¶64

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶65

W.P. Nos.27313 of 2022 & 30008 of 2023

¶66

the many trailer owners. Therefore, the uniformity has to be followed, otherwise, it is very difficult to implement the orders of CCI, now, in the peace committee meeting, all the parties have agreed which resulted in passing the order of RDO, hence, the

¶67

order of RDO dated 14.07.2022 has to be implemented.

¶68

Heard both sides and perused the materials placed on record.

¶69

The petitioner in WP.No.27313 of 2022 are responsible for handling the

¶70

goods in the Chennai Port Trust. They have engaged some trailers from the owners, the trailer owners have formed various associations, besides, the petitioner is also engaging private fleet of trailers outside. Now, it is also the grievance of the petitioner that the association with the help of drivers have indulged in frequent strikes for unilateral fixation of the price for transport services and also preventing the petitioner from hiring the private fleets more than 20 from outside. According to the petitioner, this has been adopted as coercive method and preventing the petitioner to do the lawful activities. Thus, the petitioner has raised a complaint before the CCI in Case No.4 of 2018 against 12 associations. Except the first respondent in Case No.4 of 2018 namely Trailer Owners Association, others have not filed any counter. After hearing both sides, CCI has ultimately recorded as follows:-

¶71

“ 77. Guided by the aforesaid broad parameters, the Commission finds that, in the present matter, the thin line has been transgressed by OP-1

¶72

8 / 15

¶73

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶74

W.P. Nos.27313 of 2022 & 30008 of 2023

¶75

to OP-10. Fixing prices and restricting provision of services under the aegis of trade associations cannot be held as a legitimate activity under the Act. Moreover, these justifications cannot be used as a reason to decide and enforce a blanket increase in prices, collectively by the OPS. Decisions related to price fixing and output restriction amongst those engaged in similar trade are recognized as some of the most pernicious anti-competitive conduct. Apparently, owing to their pernicious nature, the Act raises apresumption of such conduct resulting into an AAEC.

¶76

79. Further, as regards the third justification offered by OP-1, Le. the decisions taken at the impugned meetings were mutual decisions which had an active involvement of the members of the Informant and the Chennai Port Trust, the Commission is hesitant to accept this as a justification for a conduct falling under Section 3(3)(a) and (b) of the Act. The rebuttal of the presumption of AAEC that exists in such cases or is likely to exist, thereby distorting competition, needs to be dispelled by providing concrete evidence to the satisfaction of the Commission on the redeeming nature of the alleged conduct. It has to be shown that the impugned conduct, rather than harming competition has resulted in accruing benefits to consumers or achieving improvements in the production or distribution of goods or provision of services or promotion of technical, scientific and economic development by means of production or distribution of goods or provision of services. Tested on these parameters, the justification offered by OP-1 does not in any manner rebut the presumption of AAEC but has been an attempt possibly to provide succor to its members and nothing more. The participation of Informant or Chennai Port Trust cannot alter the characterisation of an otherwise collusive conduct/practice. Neither can it dilute the responsibility of the associations involved in such collusive decision making . In a competitive market, the prices of goods or services should ideally be determined by a free interaction between demand and supply forces. Any collective collusive action can manipulate the market outcomes under which the independent decisions between each buyer and seller could have been reached. Seen in this light, the collective action by TOAS has manipulated the market forces and narrowed the scope of competition.

¶77

80. In this regard, the Commission also notes the submissions made by the Informant that the OPS were using strikes and lock-outs as a means to make the members of the Informant agree to their illegal demands. Further, since the Chennai Port was following a practice of issuing

¶78

9 / 15

¶79

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶80

W.P. Nos.27313 of 2022 & 30008 of 2023

¶81

passes for the entry of trailers and drivers only when such passes were endorsed by one of the trailer associations (OPS), members of the Informant had no option but to agree to the demands of the OPs. Further, the DG had observed that, though the Chairman of the Chennai Port Trust chaired the meeting dated 09.08.2014, his presence seems nothing more than an attempt to safeguard seamless movement of work without any disruption at the Chennai Port.

¶82

81. The Commission thus does not find any of the justifications offered by OP-1 to be sufficient to rebut the presumption and discharge the burden of proof that was on it considering the nature of its submissions and evidence in support thereof, In the event thereof, the Commission concludes that the conduct of OP-1 to OP10 has led to a contravention of the provisions of Section 3(3)(a) and Section 3(3)(b) read with Section 3(1) of the Act.

¶83

82.In view of the foregoing, the Commission holds that the decisions taken by OP-1 to OP-10, for the reasons adumbrated in this order, are in contravention of the provisions of Section 3(3)(a) and Section 3(3)(b) read with Section 3(1) of the Act. Accordingly, the Commission directs OP-1 to OP-10 to cease and desist in respect of the anti-competitive conduct committed by it and which has been found to be in contravention of the provisions of the Act, 83. However, on a holistic assessment, and taking into consideration the submissions of OP-1 as recorded earlier in this order, the Commission is of the considered view that a cease-and-desist order under Section 27 of the Act would subserve the ends of justice in the matter.”

¶84

After a detailed enquiry, the Commission has held that in a competitive

¶85

market, the prices of goods or services should ideally be determined by a free interaction between demand and supply forces. Such being a position, there cannot be any compulsion or coercion in the name of association by indulging strike and preventing the writ petitioner from engaging the outsiders to remove the goods from the Port. Involving in such illegal activities in view of this Court is threatening and

¶86

10 / 15

¶87

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶88

W.P. Nos.27313 of 2022 & 30008 of 2023

¶89

the same amounts to anti-competitive conduct.

¶90

Now, it becomes pertinent to delineate the objective of the Competition Act, 2002 and the role of CCI. The objective of the Act is set out in the Preamble itself, i.e., to establish a Commission to prevent practices having adverse effect on competition, to promote and sustain competition in markets, to protect the interests of consumers, and to ensure the freedom of trade carried on by other participants in markets, in India, and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. It is also a special statute which deals with anti-competition under Section 3 of the Competition Act, 2002 and frowns at the anti-competitive agreements. It deals with three kinds of practices which are treated as anti-competitive and are prohibited. To recapitulate, they are:-

¶91

(a) where agreements are entered into by certain persons with a view to cause an appreciable adverse effect on competition;

¶92

(b) where any enterprise or group of enterprises, which enjoys dominant position, abuses the said dominant position; and

¶93

(c) regulating the combination of enterprises by means of mergers or amalgamations to ensure that such mergers or amalgamations do not become anti-competitive or abuse the dominant position which they can attain.

¶94

Competition Commission of India is specifically entrusted with duties

¶95

and functions, and in the process empower as well, to deal with the aforesaid three kinds of anti-competitive practices. The purpose is to eliminate such practices which

¶96

11 / 15

¶97

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶98

W.P. Nos.27313 of 2022 & 30008 of 2023

¶99

are having adverse effect on the competition to promote and sustain competition and to protect the interest of the consumers and ensure freedom of trade, carried on by other participants, in India. Such view of the matter, when the competent authority established under Law, viz., CCI has taken note of the grievance of the parties and passed a detailed order which has not been challenged, contrary to the said findings, particularly, when the CCI has taken cognisance, raising the very issue once again under the guise of law and order issue by one of the association or trade union not permissible. Therefore, the respondent/RDO cannot record a finding as if there was a consent by all the association and the same has to be followed as per the impugned order dated 14.07.2022. The very impugned order clearly indicate that the order has been passed in a peace meeting and to curb the law and order issue. Before that various notices have been issued indicating that there is a law and order issue, therefore, the petitioner should also participate.

¶100

This Court is of the view that when the CCI under the Competition Act, 2002 had already seized the matter, on the basis of coercive action, strike and withdrawal of the work and making it as a law and order issue, a different decision cannot be taken by the authorities just to maintain law and order issue. This is purely contractual issue between the parties, ultimately, it is the prerogative of the petitioner to engage any of the trailers and they can negotiate with any of the owner directly. In

¶101

12 / 15

¶102

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶103

W.P. Nos.27313 of 2022 & 30008 of 2023

¶104

a competitive market who-ever offers the best price which is suitable for the parties, the work will be allotted. Such being a position, in the name of association, one cannot dictate terms that they will operate only if such a rate is fixed which is nothing but anti-competitive conduct. Hence, this Court is of the view that the order of RDO contrary to the provisions of Competition Act, 2002. The newly impleaded 7^th respondent/petitioner in WP.No.30008 of 2023 ought to have participated in the proceedings before the CCI.

¶105

The impleadment of the seventh respondent was already rejected by this Court vide detailed order dated 24.02.2023 as they have not produced any materials to show that thier association was already existing from the beginning, whereas, before the CCI, major associations were made as parties and there was contest made by the owners association particularly, the first respondent therein namely Trailer Owners Association and the same is also taken note of by the CCI. Therefore, merely, under the pretext of law and order issue, one cannot be forced to accept certain terms made by the majority of the members by involving in flash of strikes, making other activities standstill and by creating tension forcing the law enforcing authorities to interfere and making a demand to enter the premises by browbeating and forcing the petitioner to give up their actual right in view of this Court is nothing but a coercion exerted by the entire group to succumb to their pressure for accepting their demand which cannot be permitted in the fair

¶106

13 / 15

¶107

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶108

W.P. Nos.27313 of 2022 & 30008 of 2023

¶109

competition world.

¶110

It is the choice of the petitioner to engage any trailer and negotiate with any of the owner directly, who-ever offers the best price which is suitable for the parties. Therefore, the members of the association cannot compel that the rate should be uniform to all the trailers. There may be instances that any-one of the trailer had transported the goods for lesser rate, therefore, in the name of association, one cannot compel that there should be uniform rate for all the trailers. Such being the position, the order of the first respondent/RDO dated 14.07.2022 has no legal sanctity and cannot be enforced in the eye of law. The petitioner is free to engage any fleet from outside and the petitioner cannot be prevented from other associations. Any such act which lend to preventing the petitioner from operating the trailers from outside, it is the duty of the police to give protection to the petitioner. Other trade unions/associations who are already party before the CCI cannot take a different stand to overcome the order passed against them by the CCI. Accordingly, the writ petition in WP.No.27313 of 2022 stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions stand closed.

¶111

Since, the order passed by the RDO dated 14.07.2022 is against the

¶112

order passed by CCI, the same cannot be given effect to and sustained in the eye of law. Accordingly, the petition in WP.No.30008 of 2023 filed seeking for a direction to implement the order dated 14.07.2022 stands dismissed. No costs.

¶113

14 / 15

¶114

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶115

W.P. Nos.27313 of 2022 & 30008 of 2023

¶116

23.09.2025

¶117

dhk Index :Yes/No To

¶118