Summary
Port users challenged a circular limiting storage of cargo to sixty days, contending that it altered the tariff which only the Tariff Authority could determine. The Court distinguished the regulation of storage and port operations from the fixing of rates. The existing tariff did not confer an unlimited right to occupy port premises. The uniformly applicable storage restriction was upheld and the appeals dismissed.
Issues
- Whether a storage-duration restriction amounted to an alteration of tariff reserved to the Tariff Authority.
- Whether the sixty-day restriction was arbitrary.
Held
- The tariff prescribed charges for storage, including escalating charges for longer periods, but did not confer an unlimited right to retain cargo. Its notes preserved the requirements of permission and vacation on notice. (¶¶ 11, 12, 13, 14)
- The circular regulated the duration of storage and port operations rather than modifying tariff rates. The transfer of tariff-setting powers did not deprive the port authorities of their operational powers. The validity of delegation to the Traffic Manager was not an issue for determination. (¶¶ 14, 15, 16)
- The sixty-day limit applied uniformly and afforded notice before implementation. The objection based on absence of congestion data was an afterthought not raised before the High Court; the restriction was reasonable and did not violate Article 14. (¶ 17)
Result
The appeals were dismissed without costs. The challenge to the circular and the consequential claim for refund failed.