MAHESHWARY HANDLING AGENCY PRIVATE LIMITED versus BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF KANDLA PORT TRUST AND OTHERS on 17 September 2019

MAHESHWARY HANDLING AGENCYPRIVATE LIMITED

v.

BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF KANDLA PORTTRUST AND OTHERS

(Civil Appeal No. 5277 of 2010)

SEPTEMBER 17, 2019

[INDU MALHOTRA AND SANJIV KHANNA, JJ.]

Ports – Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 – ss.52 and 47A –Notification dated 4[th] November, 1993 published u/s.52 of the Actfixing a schedule / scale of rates for storage of goods / cargo at theKandla Port – Act amended in 1997 whereby s.52 was omitted ands.47A was inserted to constitute a Tariff Authority – Circular dated31[st] August, 1998 issued by Traffic Manager of the Port, stipulatedlevy of penalty for storage of goods beyond period of sixty daystreating the same as unauthorised occupation – Whether the 1998circular was in conformity with the terms of the 1993 Notificationor had the effect of modifying or amending the same – Held: Thefirst portion of the Notification prescribing escalating rates for useof open area and sheds did not vest any right to occupy such spacefor unlimited period of time – Prescribing different slabs or ratesfor storage of cargo for different periods by the 1993 Notificationwas meant to fix rates for the rent payable and not to deny or curtailthe power of the Traffic Manager to authorise and permit use ofsheds and space for storage of cargo / containers – The 1993Notification had empowered and left it to the Traffic Manager todeal with the question of unauthorised occupation, including thetime limits or period during which the goods could be authorised tobe stored – Levy of penalty for unauthorised occupation of spacefor period beyond sixty days of storage as fixed vide the impugned1998 circular was in conformity and in consonance with the 1993Notification and in particular Notes 1, 4 and 5 thereof, and washence not illegal or invalid.

Ports – Kandla Port Regulations – Regns. 64 and 128 –Power and authority of the Traffic Manager of the Port under thePort Regulations – Notification dated 4[th] November, 1993 published

969

A

B

CD

E

F

G

H

Au/s.52 of the Act fixing a schedule / scale of rates for storage ofgoods / cargo at the Kandla Port – Act amended in 1997 wherebys.52 was omitted and s.47A was inserted to constitute a TariffAuthority – Circular dated 31[st] August, 1998 issued by TrafficManager of the Port, stipulated levy of penalty for storage of goodsbeyond period of sixty days treating the same as unauthorisedBoccupation – Whether the 1998 circular was beyond the powersavailable and entrusted to the Traffic Manager under the PortRegulations – Held: The contention that the Traffic Manager wasnot competent to fix time limit for storage, is unacceptable andcontrary to the Notes to the said Notification and the powers vestedCand given under the Regulations to the Traffic Manager – The TrafficManager had authority and discretion for allotment of space forstorage on rent and to withdraw allotment of space depending onthe availability and to ensure that the port operations were nothindered and obstructed due to congestion and shortage of space– Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 – ss.52 and 47A.DPorts – Storage of goods / cargo at the Kandla Port – Circulardated 31[st] August, 1998 issued by Traffic Manager of the Port,stipulated levy of penalty for storage of goods beyond period ofsixty days treating the same as unauthorised occupation – Whetherthe circular was unreasonable and violative of Art. 14 of theEConstitution – Held: The circular though issued on 31[st] August,1998 was made effective and applicable from 1[st] October, 1998 –Therefore, the parties were given time to take steps to avoid theusage of the storage facility from being declared as unauthorized –The impugned circular (which specifically recorded that there wasFcongestion at the Port which had necessitated issuance of thecircular) brought about uniformity, clarity and transparency in theuse of storage facilities at the Kandla Port – The circular ensuredequal treatment without discretion as upper time limit of sixty dayswas prescribed for storage of goods failing which penalty waspayable – Period of sixty days is sufficient and long and cannot beGtermed as unreasonable and violating Art.14 of the Constitution –Constitution of India, 1950 – Art. 14.

Dismissing the appeal, the Court

HELD:1.1. The Notification dated 4[th] November, 1993 hadHspecified rent/usage charges for open space, covered space,

Conclusion

containers, office accommodation, etc., which charges werepayable dependent upon the space and the length of time usedfor storage. Note 1 to the Notification stated that a person wantingto use the rental space was required to make an application forstorage of goods to the Traffic Manager. It was also specifiedthat any unauthorised occupation of rented space shall make theperson liable to pay double the rent as penalty. Note 1 did notspecify when and in what circumstances occupation of the rentedspace would be treated as unauthorised occupation. Note 2 hadspecified that storage charges would be paid in advance and penalinterest @ 18% would be payable on the amount due and notpaid from the date when the amount had become due till the dateof actual payment. Note 4 had specified that the space cannot beallotted without permission of the Traffic Manager of the Port.Note 5 had stipulated that the space allotted would be vacated onnotice from the Traffic Manager or any other officer on his behalf,failing which the occupation would be treated as unauthorisedand the person in unauthorised occupation would be liable forpenalty rent under Note 1. Thus, for authorised occupation andusage of space/area, permission from the Traffic Manager wasrequired. Further, the Traffic Manager or an officer appointed onhis behalf, was empowered to issue notice for vacation of spaceallotted to a user, failing which the use of the space was to betreated as unauthorised and the person in violation was liable topay double the rent as penalty. [Para 11][981-A-E]

1.2. Regulation 128 of the Kandla Port Regulations providesthat “the quays, sheds, gates and the land within the Portboundaries shall be in the charge of the Traffic Manager whoshall direct and manage all operations connected with the landingand shipping of goods, and with their storage in the shed and inthe open. He shall have proper custody of all goods lying in thePort and taken whatever steps he may consider necessary forthe proper maintenance of order.” The Traffic Manager of thePort is obligated to control and manage the port operations, checkobstructions to traffic movement and remove hinderance forefficient and proper use of berths, landing and shipping of goodsand storage in the sheds and open area. Regulation 64 stipulatesthat loading and unloading of vessels was subject to control of AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

Athe Traffic Manager who had the discretion to prohibit dischargeof goods which are likely to obstruct traffic, cause congestion orhinder convenient movement at the Port. [Para 12][981-F-H; 982-A-B]

2.1. It is clear from the Notes that the Notification hadBempowered and left it to the Traffic Manager to deal with thequestion of unauthorised occupation, including the time limits orperiod during which the goods could be authorised to be stored.The Notification had not specified when and in what circumstancesuse of the storage area would be treated as unauthorised as thiswas left to the wisdom of the Traffic Manager who was the personCin-charge and responsible for efficient and proper functioning ofthe port operations and mandated to take the need based decisionson the basis of prevalent facts and circumstances. This latitudewas necessary as the schedule of rates fixed vide Notificationdated 4[th] November, 1993 were applicable till a new NotificationDor amendment was made by following the procedure prescribedvide Section 52 of the Port Trusts Act, which would requireapproval from the Central Government. [Para 13][982-B-D]

2.2. Prescribing different slabs or rates for storage of cargofor different periods was meant to fix rates for the rent payableEand not to deny or curtail the power of the Traffic Manager toauthorise and permit use of sheds and space for storage of cargo/containers. As per the Notes, the Traffic Manager, on anapplication by the owners or their agents was to grant permissionfor authorised storage. Storage without the permission or contraryto the permission was unauthorised. Further, the space allottedFwas to be vacated on notice from the Traffic Manager. On failureto comply, and vacate the space, the use was treated asunauthorised occupation and the person in default was liable topay double the rent for unauthorised use. [Para 14][982-E-F]

2.3. The first portion of the Notification prescribingGescalating rates for use of open area and sheds did not vest anyright to occupy such space for unlimited period of time. This isthe exact purport of the Notes, which have been readharmoniously with the first portion of the Notification. The Traffic H

Manager had authority and discretion for allotment of space forstorage on rent and to withdraw allotment of space depending onthe availability and to ensure that the port operations were nothindered and obstructed due to congestion and shortage of space.Therefore, the contention that the Traffic Manager was notcompetent to fix time limit for storage, is unacceptable andcontrary to the Notes and the powers vested and given underthe Regulations to the Traffic Manager. [Para 15][982-G-H; 983-A]

2.4. In this case, one is not required to examine whetherdelegation of powers to the Traffic Manager in the Notificationwas excess or invalid, for this issue or contention has not beenraised. The validity of the Notification is not questioned and underchallenge. Read in this manner, it cannot be said that levy ofpenalty for unauthorised occupation of the space for period beyondsixty days of storage as fixed vide the impugned circular wouldbe illegal and invalid. In fact, it would be in conformity and inconsonance with the Notification and in particular Notes 1, 4 and5 thereof. The circular had brought about uniformity, clarity andtransparency in the use of storage facilities at the Kandla Port.The circular though issued on 31[st] August, 1998 was madeeffective and applicable from 1[st] October, 1998. Therefore, theparties were given time to take steps to avoid the usage of thestorage facility from being declared as unauthorised.[Para 16][983-B-D]

3. The impugned circular specifically recorded that therewas congestion at the Port which had necessitated issuance ofthe circular stipulating that storage of goods beyond the periodof sixty days would be treated as unauthorised occupation. Thecontention of the appellant as to absence of data indicating thedetails of congestion is an afterthought as this contention wasnot raised and argued before the High Court. The said circularensured uniformity and equal treatment without discretion asupper time limit of sixty days was prescribed for storage of goodsfailing which penalty was payable. Period of sixty days is sufficientand long and cannot be termed as unreasonable and violatingArticle 14 of the Constitution. [Para 17][983-E-F]

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

ACIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5277of 2010.

From the Judgment and Order dated 15.07.2008 of the High Courtof Gujarat at Ahmedabad in L.P.A. No. 1585 of 2007.

Nikhil Goel, Ms. Naveen Goel, Piyo Harald, Mrs. Sheela Goel,Advs. for the Appellant.

B

Pravin H. Parekh, Sr. Adv., D. P. Mohanty, Abhiram Naik, RaghavBansal, Paritosh Arora, Ms. Aashna Bhatnagar, M/S. Parekh & Co.,A. V. Rangam, Advs. for the Respondents.

C

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SANJIV KHANNA, J.

1. The appellant, Maheshwary Handling Agency Private Limited,is a private limited company engaged in the business of clearing,Dforwarding and transporting of cargo for import and export as a steameragent.

2. During the course of their business, the appellant had usedfacilities at the Kandla Port, Gujarat for storing imported/ exported cargo,for which it was liable to pay charges as per schedule/scales of ratesEframed by the Board of Trustees of Kandla Port Trust, the first respondentbefore us (“the Board”, for short) published in the Official Gazette interms of Section 52 of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 (“Port TrustsAct”, for short), which prior to its omission in 1997 read as under:

“52. Prior sanction of Central Government to rates andconditions:- Every scale of rates and every statement ofconditions framed by a Board under the foregoing provision ofthis Chapter shall be submitted to the Central Government forsanction and shall have effect when so sanctioned and publishedby the Board in the Official Gazette.”

F

G

3. Notification dated 4[th] November, 1993 published under Section52 of the Port Trusts Act had fixed a schedule/scales of rates payablefor storage of goods/cargo at the Kandla Port. Relevant portion of theNotification dated 4[th] November,1993, read as under:

H

A

B

C

D

E

F

GH

[2019] 18 S.C.R.

A

B

C

D

Notes:

1. Application for rental space should be made before storageof goods to the Traffic Manager. Any unauthorisedoccupation of rented space shall be liable for payment ofdouble the rent as a penalty.

E

2. Storage charges should be paid in advance. Penal interestat the rate of 18% of the amount due but not paid from thedate of which the amount becomes due to the date of actualpayment shall be levied for genuine reasons and withpermissions of Port Authorities which shall in no case exceed7 days. If by any reason, payment is delayed beyond 7days from the date of the amount becoming due, otherwiseoccupation will be treated as unauthorised.

F

xxxxxx

G4.Space allotted cannot be subject (sic – allotted) without thepermission of the Traffic Manager.

5. The space allotted should be vacated on notice from theTraffic Manager or other officer on his behalf failing whichit will be treated as unauthorised occupation liable for penaltyrent under Note-1.

H

6. The Traffic Manager shall have the right to take over thespaces, allotted on rental basis, which are unoccupied/emptywithout any prior notice in the interest of the port operation,in such cases, proportionate reduction in rent shall be allowedat the discretion of the T.M.”

A

4. The Port Trusts Act was amended by the Port Laws(Amendment) Act, 1997 (Act 15 of 1997) whereby Section52 was omitted and Section 47A was inserted to constituteTariff Authority for Major Ports (‘Tariff Authority’, forshort), a body corporate having perpetual succession and acommon seal, consisting of Chairman and members withstipulations as to their term of office, conditions of service,etc contained under Sections 47B to 47H of the Port TrustsAct. In terms of the amended Section 49 of the Port TrustsAct, the Tariff Authority was empowered to fix differentscales and conditions for different classes of goods andvessels and for use of any land, building, place, etc.belonging to or in possession or occupation of the Board.

BC

DE

BC

DE

5. The amended provisions came into force with effect from9[th] January, 1997. The Tariff Authority, however, had notifiedthe new scale of rates for the Kandla Port vide notificationdated 22[nd] June, 2001 which was applicable retrospectivelyand with effect from 29[th] January, 2001. The appellant andthe first respondent, viz. Board of Trustees of Kandla PortTrust, are ad idem that the appellant and others who hadused storage facility at the Kandla Port were liable to paythe rates stipulated in the Notification dated 4[th] November,1993 till the new tariff fixed by the Tariff Authority wasmade applicable with effect from 29[th] January, 2001.

F

6. The issue raised by the appellant relates to validity of circulardated 31[st] August, 1998 issued by the Traffic Manager, thesecond respondent, made effective from 1[st] October, 1998and read as under:

G

“KNDLA (sic – KANDLA) PORT TRUST PORT & CUSTOMS BUILDINGNEW KANDLA (KUTCH)PIN – 370210DATE: 31.08.1998HNO. TF/GB/3201/452

A

CIRCULAR

SUB: Past Clearance of import cargoes from Kandla Port Due to over-style (sic – overstay) of Cargoes inside theport, the port is congested causing inconvenience to both import/export cargoes moving through the port which ultimately may resultBin diversion of traffic from our port. Due to congestion, port isfacing problems with regard to accounting, stacking and deliveryof cargoes, etc. and non-availability of adequate storage spacefor export cargoes.

To overcome all the above problems now it has been decidednot to allow storage of cargoes for more than two months andauction such cargoes under the provisions of Customs Act aswell as Major Port Trust Act. Further, no renewals will beconsidered for the areas allotted on rental/warehousing terms ifthe staya stayal (sic – stay) is more than 60 days.

C

D

This will come into force w.e.f. 1[st] October, 1998.

Sd/-

Traffic ManagerKandla Port Trust”

EThe impugned circular stated that due to congestion and overstacking at the Kandla Port, problems had cropped up with regard toaccounting, stacking and delivery of cargoes etc. and non-availability ofadequate storage space for export cargoes. To overcome this problem,storage of cargoes would not be allowed for more than two months andauction of such cargoes would be made under the Customs Act, 1962Fand the Port Trusts Act. Further, no renewals would be considered forthe areas allotted on rental/warehousing terms if the cargo had remainedstored for more than sixty days.

E

7. The effect of the above circular can be understood if we referto Notes 1, 4, 5 and 6 of the Notification dated 4[th] November, 1993,Gwhich have been quoted above. The said circular read with the aforesaidNotes meant that any person using the storage facility for more thansixty days would be in unauthorised occupation and thereby liable to paypenalty rent under Note 1, which was double the rent otherwise payable.

8. Aggrieved and challenging the circular dated 31[st] August, 1998,Hthe appellant had approached the High Court of Gujarat by filing Special Civil Application No. 12954 of 2000 with the prayer that the firstrespondent should refund the amount collected as penalty rent in termsof the impugned circular. The Civil Application was dismissed by theSingle Judge vide judgment dated 14[th] June, 2007 and the appellant alsodid not succeed before the Division Bench which had dismissed theLetters Patent Appeal vide impugned judgment dated 15[th] July, 2008.

9. The contentions raised by the appellant are that after theamendment vide Act 15 of 1997, applicable with effect from 9[th] January,1997, in terms of Section 47A read with Sections 48 and 49 of the PortTrusts Act, only the Tariff Authority could have fixed the tariff/rent andthe Traffic Manager could not have directly or indirectly fixed the saidtariff, which the latter did by way of issuance of the impugned circulardated 31[st] August, 1998. Secondly, the circular issued by the TrafficManager in garb of regulating traffic had the effect of interfering withthe scales of rates prescribed vide Notification dated 4[th] November,1993 which had not only fixed the rates but had also prescribed anescalating schedule of rates depending upon the period for which thespace, whether open or covered or as containers, was used. The scheduleof rates, reproduced above, were applicable for the period of storage/use beyond sixty days and, therefore, the Traffic Manager had directlyinterfered with the notified scales of rates by prescribing that any storagebeyond a period of sixty days would be treated as unauthorised. Thirdly,there could be several reasons for storage of goods at the Port for aperiod over sixty days, which could be well beyond the control of theperson storing the goods. The impugned circular did not give anyconcessions in this regard and did not consider that delays could be onaccount of customs clearance, inability to load or unload due to externalfactors or refusal of the shipping company, etc. Therefore, the circularwas an attempt by the first respondent to collect higher monetary chargesor rentals for use of the port area/facilities. Fourthly, it was submittedthat there was not a shred of data or evidence to show that the restrictionwith regard to duration of storage was justified and necessary for theobject and reasons stated. The Port Trust, having monopoly, was requiredto act in a reasonable manner. Hence, there was a violation of Article 14of the Constitution of India. Our attention was drawn to the withdrawalof the impugned circular after the issuance of higher rate of scales in2001 by the Tariff Authority. Fifthly, and lastly, it was submitted that thepower of Traffic Manager to issue the impugned circular could not betraced to Regulation 64, which specifically dealt with controlling the goods AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

Aat the time of loading and unloading of vessels. Regulation 64 reads asunder:

“—64. Work in port under the control of Traffic Manager.The loading and unloading of vessels shall be subject to the controlof the Traffic Manager, who may at his discretion, prohibit theBdischarge of such goods which in his opinion are likely to obstructtraffic or cause congestion or hinder the convenient use of theberths.

Notwithstanding the provisions of Regulation No. 113, the TrafficManager may at his discretion also remove to the other areas asCunder his jurisdiction, any goods upon landing in the port or soonthereafter, the storage of which on port premises is likely toobstruct traffic or cause congestion. The apportionment of Quayspace to be occupied by each vessel shall similarly be determinedby the Traffic Manager.”

DThis power under Regulation 64 was regarding goods that werelikely to cause traffic congestion and not regarding the rate of storagefor a particular period. Therefore, the impugned circular was beyondthe powers available and entrusted to the Traffic Manager underRegulation 64. The Traffic Manager, in this manner, had illegally extractedhuge amount of over Rs. 52 lakhs for over-stay of cargo without anyEjustification and reason.

10. We have already quoted the scales fixed by the Notificationdated 4[th] November, 1993 as well as the Notes in the Notification. ThisNotification was not under challenge in the Special Civil Application orin appeal filed before the High Court. The Notification is not underFchallenge before us. The appellant also accepts that they were liable topay the scales specified in the Notification till the new tariff was notifiedpursuant to the constitution of the Tariff Authority, which it is acceptedwas notified and applicable with effect from 29[th] January, 2001.Therefore, for the period prior to 29[th] January, 2001, the appellant wouldGbe liable to pay tariff as per the scales and terms of the Notificationdated 4[th] November, 1993. The issue that arises for consideration iswhether the impugned circular dated 31[st] August, 1998 was in conformitywith the terms of the Notification or had the effect of modifying oramending the Notification dated 4[th] November, 1993.

H

11. In our opinion, the answer to the question would be in favourof the first and second respondents. The Notification dated 4[th] November,1993 had specified rent/usage charges for open space, covered space,containers, office accommodation, etc., which charges were payabledependent upon the space and the length of time used for storage. Note1 to the Notification stated that a person wanting to use the rental spacewas required to make an application for storage of goods to the TrafficManager. It was also specified that any unauthorised occupation of rentedspace shall make the person liable to pay double the rent as penalty.Note 1 did not specify when and in what circumstances occupation ofthe rented space would be treated as unauthorised occupation. Note 2had specified that storage charges would be paid in advance and penalinterest @ 18% would be payable on the amount due and not paid fromthe date when the amount had become due till the date of actual payment.Note 4 had specified that the space cannot be allotted without permissionof the Traffic Manager of the Port. Note 5 had stipulated that the spaceallotted would be vacated on notice from the Traffic Manager or anyother officer on his behalf, failing which the occupation would be treatedas unauthorised and the person in unauthorised occupation would beliable for penalty rent under Note 1. Thus, for authorised occupation andusage of space/area, permission from the Traffic Manager was required.Further, the Traffic Manager or an officer appointed on his behalf, wasempowered to issue notice for vacation of space allotted to a user, failingwhich the use of the space was to be treated as unauthorised and theperson in violation was liable to pay double the rent as penalty.

12. Regulation 128 reads as follows:

“128. Quays, etc. to be under the authority of the TrafficManager:

The quays, sheds, gates and the land within the Port boundariesshall be in the charge of the Traffic Manager who shall direct andmanage all operations connected with the landing and shipping ofgoods, and with their storage in the shed and in the open. He shallhave proper custody of all goods lying in the Port and takenwhatever steps he may consider necessary for the propermaintenance of order.”

The Traffic Manager of the Port is obligated to control and managethe port operations, check obstructions to traffic movement and removehinderance for efficient and proper use of berths, landing and shipping AB

C

DE

F

G

H

Aof goods and storage in the sheds and open area. Regulation 64 quotedin paragraph 9 above stipulates that loading and unloading of vesselswas subject to control of the Traffic Manager who had the discretion toprohibit discharge of goods which are likely to obstruct traffic, causecongestion or hinder convenient movement at the Port.

B13. It is clear from the Notes that the Notification had empoweredand left it to the Traffic Manager to deal with the question of unauthorisedoccupation, including the time limits or period during which the goodscould be authorised to be stored. The Notification had not specified whenand in what circumstances use of the storage area would be treated asunauthorised as this was left to the wisdom of the Traffic Manager whoCwas the person in-charge and responsible for efficient and properfunctioning of the port operations and mandated to take the need baseddecisions on the basis of prevalent facts and circumstances. This latitudewas necessary as the schedule of rates fixed vide Notification dated 4[th]November, 1993 were applicable till a new Notification or amendmentDwas made by following the procedure prescribed vide Section 52 of thePort Trusts Act, which would require approval from the CentralGovernment.

14. Prescribing different slabs or rates for storage of cargo fordifferent periods was meant to fix rates for the rent payable and not toEdeny or curtail the power of the Traffic Manager to authorise and permituse of sheds and space for storage of cargo/containers. As per the Notes,the Traffic Manager, on an application by the owners or their agentswas to grant permission for authorised storage. Storage without thepermission or contrary to the permission was unauthorised. Further, thespace allotted was to be vacated on notice from the Traffic Manager.FOn failure to comply, and vacate the space, the use was treated asunauthorised occupation and the person in default was liable to pay doublethe rent for unauthorised use.

15. It is obvious that the first portion of the Notification prescribingescalating rates for use of open area and sheds did not vest any right toGoccupy such space for unlimited period of time. This, we hold, is theexact purport of the Notes, which have been read harmoniously with thefirst portion of the Notification. The Traffic Manager had authority anddiscretion for allotment of space for storage on rent and to withdrawallotment of space depending on the availability and to ensure that theHport operations were not hindered and obstructed due to congestion and shortage of space. We, therefore, would reject the contention that theTraffic Manager was not competent to fix time limit for storage. Thecontention is unacceptable and would be contrary to the Notes and thepowers vested and given under the Regulations to the Traffic Manager.

16. We are in this case not required to examine whether delegationof powers to the Traffic Manager in the Notification was excess orinvalid, for this issue or contention has not been raised. As noted earlier,validity of the Notification is not questioned and under challenge. Readin this manner, we do not think levy of penalty for unauthorised occupationof the space for period beyond sixty days of storage as fixed vide theimpugned circular would be illegal and invalid. In fact, it would be inconformity and in consonance with the Notification and in particularNotes 1, 4 and 5 thereof. The circular had brought about uniformity,clarity and transparency in the use of storage facilities at the KandlaPort. The circular though issued on 31[st] August, 1998 was made effectiveand applicable from 1[st] October, 1998. Therefore, the parties were giventime to take steps to avoid the usage of the storage facility from beingdeclared as unauthorised.

17. Other contention of the appellant as to absence of dataindicating the details of congestion is an afterthought as this contentionwas not raised and argued before the High Court. The impugned circularspecifically recorded that there was congestion at the Port which hadnecessitated issuance of the circular stipulating that storage of goodsbeyond the period of sixty days would be treated as unauthorisedoccupation. The said circular ensured uniformity and equal treatmentwithout discretion as upper time limit of sixty days was prescribed forstorage of goods failing which penalty was payable. Period of sixty daysis sufficient and long and cannot be termed as unreasonable and violatingArticle 14 of the Constitution. The aforesaid reasoning would take careof the other arguments raised by the appellants, which we would reiteratewere not argued before the High Court.

18. For all the foregoing reasons, the appeal fails and is dismissed.There would be no order as to costs.

Bibhuti Bhushan Bose

Appeal dismissed.

AB

C

D

E

F

G