Summary
The High Court erred in disposing of a 1996 writ petition as infructuous and relegating the petitioner to a civil suit. The petition raised a pure question of law, whether the cost of removing a capsized barge's wreck under Section 14 of the Indian Ports Act, 1908 could be fastened on a party other than the vessel's owner, which required no disputed facts. Lapse of time caused by systemic delay was no ground to close it. The petition was revived and remanded for decision on merits.
Issues
- Whether the High Court could dispose of a writ petition as infructuous, citing disputed facts and lapse of time, when it raised a pure question of law on who is liable for wreck-removal costs under Section 14 of the Indian Ports Act, 1908.
- Whether efflux of time due to systemic delay justifies closing a pending writ petition without adjudication.
Provisions considered
- Section 14(1), Indian Ports Act, 1908Empowers the conservator to give notice to the owner of a vessel wrecked or sunk in a port to raise or remove it and furnish security. The appellant, which was not the barge's owner, was called upon under it to deposit Rs. 70 lakh. Whether it could be made liable was the legal question left unanswered by the High Court; the Supreme Court did not decide it. (¶¶ 4, 6, 8)
- Article 226, Constitution of IndiaWhere a writ petition raises a pure question of law without a disputed factual setting, the High Court should adjudicate it rather than relegate the party to a suit (B S Hari Commandant v. Union of India relied on). (¶¶ 6, 7)
Held
- The lis was alive because a pure question of law, on whom liability for clearing the wreck should be fastened, had been raised. The appellant had also deposited the amount demanded, so the High Court was bound to answer that question; no disputed facts were involved, and treating the petition as infructuous was erroneous. (¶ 6)
- Lapse of time alone is not a ground to close a matter where the delay is systemic and not due to the litigant's laches; a cause is not defeated merely by efflux of time while it awaits hearing (Union Territory of Ladakh v. Jammu and Kashmir National Conference). (¶¶ 6, 7)
- The Supreme Court expressed no view on the merits of liability under Section 14. It left all questions of law and fact open, and provided that the appellant would be suitably compensated for the deposit already withdrawn by the Port Trust if it ultimately succeeded. (¶¶ 8, 9)
Result
Appeal allowed; impugned order set aside; Writ Petition No. 2127 of 1996 revived and remanded to the High Court for decision on merits, with a request to decide it on priority. The impleadment application was disposed of with liberty to seek impleadment before the High Court.