Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Nopany & Sons vs Board Of Trustees on 14 May, 2010
Author: Debasish Kar Gupta
Bench: Debasish Kar Gupta
1 5 14.5.10
C.O. 2200 of 2009 sn NOPANY & SONS VS. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE PORT OF CALCUTTA Mr. Hironmoy Bhattacharyya Mr. Ayan Banerjee Mr. S.K. Basu ..for the petitioner Mr. Probal Mukherjee Mr. Ashok Kr. Jena ..for the Opposite party This revisional application is directed against an order no.15 dated June 4, 2009 passed by the Estate Officer, Calcutta Port Trust in connection with the proceeding nos.917, 917/D of 2005. By virtue of the impugned order, the Estate Manager rejected the prayer of the petitioner for dismissal of the proceedings under reference on the alleged ground of lacking of competency in serving ejectment notice by the Land Manager, Kolkata Port Trust after expiry of the period of lease in respect of land lying and situated at Taratola Road, Paharpur South Port Police Station, District South 24 Parganas measuring a land of about 1565.41 Sq.Mtrs.
It is submitted by the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner that in accordance with the provisions of a major Port Trust Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) every contract should, on behalf of the Board, be made by the 2 Chairman or by any Estate Officer of the Board not below the rank of head of the department. The Chairman may by general or special order, authorized in this behalf. According to him, the notice for ejectment of the petitioner was served by the Land Officer in the instant case but the Land Officer was not duly authorized by the Chairman of the opposite party under the provisions of Section 34 of the said Act. Accordingly, the proceedings under reference before the Estate Officer were not maintainable. It is also submitted by him that the Estate Officer took into consideration the provisions of Section 21 of the said Act to ascertain as to whether there was any authorization by the Board of Trustees in favour of the Land Manager. According to him, Section 21 had no manner of application in the instant case.
On the other hand, it is submitted on behalf of the opposite party that Section 21 of the said Act deals with the delegation of powers and duties conferred or in force upon the Board by or under the said Act. It may also be exercised or performed by the Chairman. Therefore, the provision of Section 21 was applicable in the instant case. Copy of the Resolution no.96 dated March 27, 1979 as also the Resolution no.168 dated May 1981 have been produced before this Court to show that there was no impropriety in the order passed by the Estate Officer after considering the above resolutions.
3
Reliance is placed by the learned Advocate appearing for the opposite party that an unreported decision dated January 11, 2005 passed in the matter of M/S. Om Credit Corporation & Anr. Vs. Board of Trustees of The Port of Calcutta and Anr. (In re :
C.O. 2423 of 2002) in support of his above submissions.
Having heard learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties as also considering the facts and circumstances of this case I find that it is not in dispute that the notice for ejectment under reference was served upon the opposite party by the Land Manager obtaining due approval from the Chairman. It is evident from the Resolution no.96 dated March 27, 1979 adopted in the meeting of the Board of Trustees of the Kolkata Port Trust that the Land Manager being the head of the department was authorized to issue the notice under reference. The above decision of the Board of Trustees of the Kolkata Port Trust was further duly approved by the Central Government under the provisions of Sub Section (B) of Section 21 of the said Act as appeared from the communication dated June 12, 1980 issued by the Under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Shipping and Transport. The Estate Officer while passing the impugned order came to a definite finding upon consideration of the aforesaid documents that when the Land Manager, Kolkata Port Trust was competently enter into any contract on behalf of the Board of Trustees of the Port of 4 Calcutta with the sanction of the Board as also with the sanction of the Central Government under the said Act in connection with the provisions of Section 21, it was difficult to accept the contention of the opposite party with regard to in competency of the Land Manager of Kolkata Port to issue notice under reference. After considering the provisions of Section 34 I find that by virtue of the above provisions the Chairman could authorize any officer of the Board not below the rank of the head of the department to act on his behalf but that provisions cannot curtail the power of the Board for delegation of the powers and duties conferred or imposed upon the board under the said Act which may also be performed by the Chairman.
After considering the aforesaid documents mentioned hereinabove, I do not find any impropriety in the order passed by the Estate Officer.
This revisional application fails.
There will be, however, no order as to costs.
Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis.
(Debasish Kar Gupta,J) 5 6 7