SARDESAI TRANSHIPPERS PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. STATE OF GOA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) COMMON questions arise in these writ petitions and therefore we are proposing to dispose of these petitions by this common judgment.

(2.) THE petitioners in these writ petitions are barge owners and they challenge the demand made by the respondents towards wharfage for the use of the wharf at the Panaji port. One of the demands so made is produced in Writ Petition No. 108/96 evidenced by Exhibit A. As per this demand, the respondents sought to realise wharfage dues payable from 1st April, 1984 to 31st May, 1994. Similar notices were given to the other petitioners. The petitioners challenge in these writ petitions these demands on the ground that they are unauthorised levy having no support of law. Before going into more details of these cases, we have to mention here that on an earlier occasion when similar demands were made by the respondents from barge owners, they had approached this Court by way of writ petitions. Those writ petitions numbering about 76 were however, disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court by judgment dated 26th February, 1992. A copy of the judgment is produced in Writ Petition No. 82/96 as Exhibit B at page 23. Those judgments were delivered on the basis of minutes of order submitted by the parties as enumerated herein:-

(3.) BY a Gazette Notification issued in 1967 under section 4 (3) of the Indian Ports Act, 1908, the provisions of the said Act were extended to the port of Panaji and its limits were defined under the said Notification. The movement of the crafts/vessels of goods or passengers and traffic in the port of Panaji is regulated by and is under the control of the respondents. The main thrust of the argument of counsel for the petitioner is that while the aforesaid Rules, namely Goa, Daman and Diu Port Rules, 1983 relate to the crafts, licensing of crafts, their landing, shipping, storage of goods and occupation of goods in the land space, the levy imposed by the respondents based on the weight of the barge for the purpose of using the wharf has not however been authorised by the said Rules. According to the petitioners, their barges ply in the inland waters of Goa, transporting ore and other cargo from the loading points along either the Mandovi river or Zuari river and unload it either at Mormugao Wharf or on ships anchored in midstream or at a transhipper at Mormugao port, all within the limits of the area of Mormugao port. This cargo is unloaded for the purpose of export to other countries. As required under the Customs Act, all the barges are required to obtain Customs clearance after unloading cargo intended for export. The petitioners further submit that there is no customs office stationed at transhippers or at ships in midstream, but there are customs offices stationed both at Mormugao wharf and also at Panaji wharf for granting customs clearance. After unloading the cargo as aforesaid, the barges have either to touch Mormugao wharf or Panaji wharf for getting customs clearance depending upon the routes of the barges returning either via Zuari river waters or Mandovi river waters to loading points again. It is further the case of the petitioners that the customs office of Panaji wharf, is hardly about 50 paces from the wharf. After touching the wharf, one sailor gets down from the barge, runs to the Customs office, gets the endorsement on Customs book, runs back to the barge and the barge leaves the Panaji wharf within about ten to fifteen minutes. The petitioners contended that during this process the barges ply empty and do not carry any cargo. There is also no loading or unloading or storing of any cargo at Panaji wharf but the only purpose of barges touching at Panaji wharf and remaining there for five to ten minutes is to get the Customs book endorsed by the Customs Officer and for no other purpose. It is clear from the above operation that the levy demanded from the petitioners is not for the use of wharf either for loading or unloading or storing any cargo, and according to the petitioners on such use alone is authorised by the Act to levy any charges against the users of the wharf. Therefore, in short, the petitioners contention is that the demand made by the respondents now is only for touching the wharf for the aforesaid purpose, namely for obtaining the customs clearance from the Customs Officer and that too for a short period of five to ten minutes. This, according to the petitioners is unauthorised and is not envisaged or authorised under the Indian Ports Act, 1908, or the Rules made thereunder.