Summary
The Supreme Court upheld Gujarat’s notification expanding Hazira port limits. Essar had no private-property right or legitimate expectation entitling it to the disputed reclaimed land, whose ownership remained with the State or Maritime Board. Reclamation beyond the permitted area lacked prior written permission; environmental clearance did not cure that defect. The expansion served public-interest needs arising from increased vessel traffic, and the speed of an earlier recommendation alone did not establish mala fides.
Issues
- Whether expanding Hazira port limits infringed Essar’s property rights or legitimate expectation concerning reclaimed land.
- Whether prior Maritime Board permission was necessary for reclamation even where the resulting land belonged to the State.
- Whether the notification lacked public interest or was tainted by haste.
Provisions considered
- Section 5, Indian Ports Act, 1908Permitted alteration of port limits subject to private-property rights; the notification was supported by public interest and affected no such right of the appellants. (¶¶ 11, 25)
- Section 35, Gujarat Maritime Board Act, 1981Required prior written permission for reclamation within port limits; the discretionary removal power did not narrow that prohibition to private assets. (¶¶ 11, 16, 22)
Held
- Section 35(1)’s negative and broad language required prior written permission for reclamation. Section 35(2)’s discretionary power to remove unauthorized works did not confine the requirement to works creating private assets. Deepening beyond the permitted draft and reclamation south of the mangroves lacked the required approval. (¶¶ 15, 16, 22)
- The time-limited MOUs conferred no rights and had expired. Correspondence expressly vested reclaimed land in the Government or Board, denied reimbursement and allowed its use by the authorities. Expenditure on dredging and reclamation therefore did not create the asserted legitimate expectation of exclusive allotment. (¶¶ 13, 18, 19, 21)
- The disputed additional reclamation lacked prior permission, and CRZ clearance did not supply it. The existing reclaimed area had been allocated for the appellants’ use subject to the stated stages of approval and construction; no enforceable private-property right was infringed by altering the port limits. (¶¶ 22, 25)
- The record showed attempts to go beyond a captive jetty towards commercial-port operation, which could not bypass the required bidding process. The appellants’ projected captive needs were also unsupported by actual utilization. (¶¶ 17, 20, 21)
- Approval of a proposal within four days did not by itself establish mala fides or absence of public interest. The expansion remained within the envisaged land requirement and was justified by increased vessel traffic and needs for anchorage, customs formalities and security. Section 5 was not violated. (¶¶ 23, 24, 25)
Result
Appeal dismissed without costs; notification expanding Hazira port limits upheld.