Madras High Court
M/S.Shv Energy Private Ltd vs Union Of India on 6 November, 2025
Author: M.Dhandapani
Bench: M.Dhandapani
WP No. 18612 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 06-11-2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
WP No. 18612 and 20431 of 2014
M/s.SHV Energy Private Ltd
(formerly Caltex Gas India Pvt. Ltd)
3rd Floor, Gold Crest, Alpha Centre,
No.150 and 151, 7th Floor,
North Usman Road, T.Nagar,
Chennai -17.
(CAUSE TITLE AMENDED VIDE
ORDER DT 07.10.2021 MADE IN Petitioner in WP.No.18612 of 2014
WMP.19038/2021 IN WP.18612/2014
BY SMSJ)
1. M/s.DCW Ltd.,
Rep.by its General Manager (Legal and Indirect Taxation)
New No.358, Old No.645, Anna Salai, Thousand Lights,
Chennai-600006
Petitioner in WP.No.20431 of 2014
Vs
1. Union of India,
Rep. by the Secretary to Government,
Ministry of Shipping, Road Transport
and Highways, Transport Bhavan, No.1,
Parliament St, New Delhi-1
2.Tariff Authority For Major Ports
(tamp) With Director, Adjudicatory
Board For Major Ports,
Ministry Of Ports, Shipping And
Waterways, Government Of India,
IV Floor, Bhandar Bhavan,
Muzawar Pakhadi Road, Mazagaon,
Mumbai 400 010.
(R2 Cause Title Amended Vide Order
Dated 30.10.2025 Made in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/02/2026 01:51:23 pm )
WP No. 18612 of 2014
WMP.46499/2025 In
WP.No.18612/2014 By MDIJ)
3.V.O.Chidambaranar Port Trust,
(formerly Tuticorin Post Trust), Rep.
By Its Chairman, V.o.chidambaranar
Port, Tuticorin-628 004.
Respondents in both the writ petitions
PRAYER in WP No. 18612 of 2014; This petition is filed under Article 226 of
Constitution of India, to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus, Calling for the
records comprised in the Notification bearing No.TAMP/ 6/2012-VOCPT and
dated 19.5.2014 notifying the order dated 4.4.2014 passed by the 2nd
respondent, and quash the same, in so far as the petitioner is concerned, in as
much as it is illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Major Port Trusts Act,
1963 as well as the provisions of the Land Use Policy, and consequently direct
the 2nd respondent to revise the Scale of Rates in respect of the petitioner
strictly in terms of the provisions of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963
PRAYER in WP No. 20431 of 2014; This petition is filed under Article 226 of
Constitution of India, to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus,calling for the
records comprised in the notification bearing No. G. No.156 and dated
21.5.2014 notifying the order dated 4.4.2014 passed by the 2nd respondent, and
quash the same, in so far as the petitioner is concerned, in as much as it is illegal
and contrary to the provisions of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 as well as the
provisions of the Land Use Policy, and consequently direct the 2nd respondent
to revise the Scale of Rates in respect of the petitioner strictly in terms of the
provisions of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963
For Petitioner(s): M/s.Rahul Balaji
in both the writ petitions
For Respondent(s): Mr.S.Hajamohideen Gisthi R2
Mr.J.Madanagopal Roa, SPC R1
Mr.Yashod Wardhan Sr.C.
For Mr.Yashwanth R3
in both the writ petitions
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/02/2026 01:51:23 pm )
WP No. 18612 of 2014
COMMON ORDER
These two writ petitions are filed challenging the revision of lease rent by the third respondent approved by the second respondent.
2. It is the case of the petitioners that the third respondent leased out certain un-utilised lands of Port to the petitioners herein for port related and non port related activities/works. As per the lease agreement entered into between the parties, the third respondent is entitled to increase annual lease rent by 5% at the end of each year. After 30.06.2004, the revision of lease rent permitted at 2% per annum. The clause has a proviso that the port has the right to revise the basic rent on the expiry of every five years.
3. The second respondent, vide order dated 18.11.2004, revised the lease rent of lands of the third respondent for a period of five years from 01.07.2002 to 30.06.2002. The third respondent had filed a proposal for revision of lease rent for a period of five years from 01.07.2007. The said proposal was disposed of by the second respondent vide order dated 11.10.2007 directing the third respondent to submit a revised proposal.
4. Thereafter, the third respondent had engaged an approved a land valuer who had submitted a valuation report. A committee was constituted to refix the lease rent with effect from 01.07.2007. The committee recommended lease rent https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/02/2026 01:51:23 pm ) WP No. 18612 of 2014 rates for two 5 year periods based on the highest valuation of land. Accordingly, the second respondent passed the impugned order challenging the writ petitions has been filed.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that the revision of rent was done immediately by the second respondent and the petitioners were kept in dark about the meeting held by the third respondent. The learned counsel contended that the revision of lease rent ought to be prospective not to be retrospective. Since the second respondent has increased rent for expire periods and the same is not sustainable in the eye of law. Likewise, the respondents have also made incorrect calculation of land cost and development cost. The learned counsel further submitted that enhancement of lease rent ought to be reasonable and in the present case, the proposed lease rent revision is almost 22 times be present paid by the petitioner. Likewise, re- classification of lands allotted to the petitioner as industry is done only to collect rates applicable commercial areas. The learned counsel therefore submitted that the revision of lease rent has been made in arbitrary manner, the impugned orders ought to be set aside.
6. The learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand would submit that the petitioners are squatting property by paying very meager lease rent amount. The parties are aggrieved over even at that time of entering lease https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/02/2026 01:51:23 pm ) WP No. 18612 of 2014 agreement that the respondents are entitled for increasing lease by 5% by every year. According to the learned counsel, during the period, for which, lease is now revised, there was no proper revision at marker price. The petitioners were literally fail very little while enjoying a prime property. The learned counsel therefore, prayed that the impugned orders may be sustained and the writ petitions may be rejected.
7. Heard the learned counsel for either side and perused the materials available on record.
8. The short point that is to be decided in these writ petitions as to whether the respondents 2 & 3 are entitled for revising lease tent and whether the revision was made in a lawful manner. There is no dispute that the petitioners have aggrieved by the lease agreement for revision of lease rent for 5% every year. The respondents have taken a stand that the highest tender rate has been prescribed as one of the auction are arriving at the market value of the land. The revision of lease rent was made on the market value of the land. Therefore, this Court of the opinion that the third respondent perfectly justified in revising the lease rent for the period mentioned in the impugned order. The petitioners were given lease of land on a prime location. They were paying only a pittance. The rent should be fixed only a prevailing market rate and none prevail the same. It is common knowledge. Therefore, the action of the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/02/2026 01:51:23 pm ) WP No. 18612 of 2014 respondents in revising the lease rent in accordance with prevailing market rat, cannot faulted with.
9. The writ petitions are disposed of with the following directions;
1. The petitioners are permitted to pay the lease rent arrears as on date in 24 equated monthly instalments.
ii. Payment of each instalment shall be made before the 5 th day of English Calender Month; and iii. Failure to pay any instalment in invite simple interest at 9%. No costs.
06-11-2025 rli Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes Neutral Citation:Yes/No https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/02/2026 01:51:23 pm ) WP No. 18612 of 2014 To
1.Union of India, Rep. by the Secretary to Government, Ministry of Shipping, Road Transport and Highways, Transport Bhavan, No.1, Parliament St, New Delhi-1
2.Tariff Authority For Major Ports (tamp) With Director, Adjudicatory Board For Major Ports, Ministry Of Ports, Shipping And Waterways, Government Of India, Iv Floor, Bhandar Bhavan, Muzawar Pakhadi Road, Mazagaon, Mumbai 400 010. (r2 Cause Title Amended Vide Order Dated 30.10.2025 Made In Wmp.46499/2025 In Wp.18612/2014 By Mdij)
3.V.O.Chidambaranar Port Trust, (formerly Tuticorin Post Trust), Rep.
By Its Chairman, V.o.chidambaranar Port, Tuticorin-628 004.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/02/2026 01:51:23 pm ) WP No. 18612 of 2014 M.DHANDAPANI J.
rli WP No. 18612 of 2014 WP NO. 20431 OF 2014 06-11-2025 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/02/2026 01:51:23 pm )