Gujarat High Court
Continental Warehousing Corporation ... vs Gujarat Maritime Board on 6 May, 2014
Author: Ravi R.Tripathi
Bench: Ravi R.Tripathi, Mohinder Pal
C/LPA/524/2014 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 524 of 2014
In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11315 of 2012
With
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4532 of 2014
In
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 524 of 2014
================================================================
CONTINENTAL WAREHOUSING CORPORATION LTD & 1....Appellant(s)
Versus
GUJARAT MARITIME BOARD....Respondent(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR AMIT PANCHAL, ADVOCATE WITH MR CHIRAG B PATEL, ADVOCATE
for the Appellant(s) No. 1 - 2
MR PREMAL NANAVATI for the Respondent No. 1
================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL
Date : 06/05/2014
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI)
1. Special Civil Application No.11315 of 2012 is filed praying that :
"7(A)Your Lordships may be pleased to allow this petition and writ of mandamus or writ of certiorari or any other writ or direction may be issued holding the termination notices for terminating the agreement of the Jetty at Rozi Page 1 of 5 C/LPA/524/2014 ORDER Pier site of Bedi Port, issued by the respondent dated 9.2.2009, 7.3.2012 and 24.7.2012 are null and void and inoperative and the respondent, their agents and servants be restrain from implementing the same and direct the respondent to calculate the minimum cargo guarantee of the petitioner as per the model framed by GMB for dynamic cargo guaranteed instead of a fix cargo guaranteed and which has been implemented for the other clients of GMB in past and be further directed to respondent that because of non granting of the permission for repairing and improving the infrastructure Jetty and back-up area and for non removing two sunken barge for a period of 3 years, and due to the microeconomic situation which affected global market and looking to the reductions in the total cargo handle at rozi port, minimum guaranteed cargo should be calculated on the basis of dynamic cargo guaranteed model of GMB and it should be spread over for a period of six years from today for the deficiency, if any, will be found. Alternatively Respondent be directed to refund Rs.13.8 Cr. To the petitioners which has been paid as a price of the jetty for taking back possession of jetty.
(B) Direct the respondent to grant permission sought by the respondent to create required infrastructure to handle white (sic.wheat / agricultural produce - other than Page 2 of 5 C/LPA/524/2014 ORDER hazardous cargo) cargo as per the plan submitted by petitioner to respondent as per the clause No.3.2 of the agreement.
(C) As petitioner was not able to work due to the reasons given above for last 6 years, we request that agreement period should be extend for 6 years as well...."
2. The matter was heard by the learned Single Judge and the learned Single Judge disposed of the matter by order dated 13.11.2013 making the following observation at the end of the order:
"Keeping it open for the petitioners to avail appropriate remedy before the Civil Court, including to claim damages, this petition is rejected. Notice is discharges with no order as to costs".
3. Heard learned advocate, Mr.Amit Panchal with Mr.C.B.Patel for the appellants, original petitioners and learned advocate, Mr.Premal Nanavati for the respondent- GMB (Gujarat Maritime Board).
4. After the matter is heard for some time, learned advocate, Mr.Panchal, submitted that appellants, original petitioners are ready and willing to go to GMB with a detailed representation pointing out all relevant factors for granting the appropriate relief as prayed for in the petition. He requested that Court may direct the GMB to consider the detailed Page 3 of 5 C/LPA/524/2014 ORDER representation of appellants, original petitioners in accordance with law in light of the practice followed by GMB in case of other similarly situated person/s.
5. Learned advocate, Mr.Premal Nanavati, submitted that if the appellants, original petitioners approach the GMB with a detailed representation to make out a case for grant of relief as prayed for in the petition, the same will be considered by the GMB in accordance with law and in light of the prevalent practice of GMB. Learned advocate Mr.Nanavati submitted that this representation will be considered keeping in mind the practice followed in case of similarly situated persons.
6. At this juncture, learned advocate for the appellants requested that it may be clarified that the representation be decided without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the appellants - original petitioners . Order accordingly.
7. The appellants, original petitioners in the event approach the GMB on or before 31st May, 2014, the GMB is expected to consider the same in accordance with law in light of the prevalent practice of GMB adopted in case of other similarly situated person/s, as early as possible but not later than 6 (six) weeks from the date of receipt of the order.
8. At the request of the learned advocates for both the sides, it is clarified that the Court has not examined the merits of the matter.
Page 4 of 5 C/LPA/524/2014 ORDER9. It will be open for the parties to take recourse to the remedy available to them in accordance with law, if required, after the representation is decided.
10. With aforesaid directions, the present Letters Patent Appeal is disposed of.
Order in Civil Application As the main appeal is disposed of with the aforesaid direction, this Civil Application does not survive and the same is disposed of accordingly.
(RAVI R.TRIPATHI, J.) (MOHINDER PAL, J.) ashish Page 5 of 5