SUSANTA CHATTERJI, J. ( 1 ) THE Rule was issued on 29-5-1981 at the instance of the writ petitioners who have prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to withdraw, cancel and/or rescind the circular dated 4-4-1981 issued by the Manager, Traffic Operation, Haldia Dock Complex as regards the imposition of penal rate at three times of the ordinary rate of rent on cargo not cleared within the month from the date of landing at Haldia General Cargo Berth. The copy of the said circular is annexed to the writ petition marked by letter 'b'. It appears from the said circular that the Chairman, Calcutta Port Trust has approved the recovery of triple rent on cargo at Haldia if not cleared within one month from the date of landing and the order will take effect on and from 1-4-1981. While issuing the rule an interim order of injunction was granted in terms of prayer (f) by restraining the respondents from giving any effect or further effect to the approval of the Chairman, Calcutta Port Trust as communicated under circular dated 4-4-1981 as aforesaid and further from taking any steps or further steps seeking to impose levy and/or collect penal rent at triple rate of the ordinary rate of rents and further directing the respondents to allow the petitioners to clear the goods on payment of usual rent and further restraining the respondents from giving any effect or further effect to and from taking any steps or further steps on the basis of the rent bills being annexure 'a' to the writ petition. The writ petition has been filed on the ground that the purported levy, imposition and/or collection of penal rent at triple rate of the ordinary rate of rent is wholly bad in law and without jurisdiction. Under the extant provisions of law and/or the rules framed under the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 rates relating to Scale of Rates (Schedule of Charges) will govern the rates pertaining to rent and other charges in respect of Haldia Dock Complex. The rent bills issued in respect of consignment referred to are ex facie, illegal and without any authority of law inasmuch as there is no warrant and/or sanction of law to justify such imposition of rent. The rent bills issued in respect of consignment referred to are ex facie, illegal and without any authority of law inasmuch as there is no warrant and/or sanction of law to justify such imposition of rent. The circular dated 4-4-1981 is due to utter overzealousness to collect rental charges at three times of the original rate of rent is unwarranted and uncalled for. The Chairman, Calcutta Port Trust is not competent to decide imposition of penal rates and to recover the triple rate of rent under the provisions of Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 and under Section 6 of Scale of Rates (Schedule of Charges ). According to the petitioners the circular dated 4-4-1981 is de hors the provisions of Section 6 of the Scale of Rates (Schedule of Charges) and is as such wholly illegal, arbitrary and mala fide and consequently the same is invalid, inoperative and unenforceable. It is further alleged that the formation of opinion of the Trustees is conspicuously absent and the Chairman is swayed by some collateral considerations and there being no provision for such imposition of penal rent the approval of the Chairman vis-a-vis the circular dated 4-4-1981 is bad in law. ( 2 ) THE writ petition is very seriously contested by the respondents - Port Trust Authorities, Calcutta. It is contended that often consignments landed from ships remain uncleared in the port premises for a long time and affect operational efficiency. To counteract such delay in clearance of goods, there is provision in Section 6a (VI) of the Scale of Rates under which the Board is authorised to charge three times of scheduled rent on any grounds which in the Board's opinion could have been removed from the port premises before rent was incurred. To have a beneficial impact the imposition of such triple rent on any uncleared consignment should be done as soon as the situation begins to (affect) operational efficiency and to cause congestion in transit sheds. In order to obviate any delay in imposing triple rent in such a situation the Chairman or the Deputy Chairman is authorised to levy triple rent on uncleared import consignments and the same was made and the order of the Chairman, was placed before the Board and the same was ratified in accordance with law. In order to obviate any delay in imposing triple rent in such a situation the Chairman or the Deputy Chairman is authorised to levy triple rent on uncleared import consignments and the same was made and the order of the Chairman, was placed before the Board and the same was ratified in accordance with law. All other allegations of the writ petitioners have been controverted by asserting that the acts done and/or caused to have been done by the Port Trust Authorities are neither contrary to nor inconsistent with the provisions as laid down in the Major Port Trusts Act of 1963 and the Scale of Rates (Schedule of Charges) on goods at the docks, jetties and inland vessels, wharves and on vessels with the approval of the Central Government. The petitioner, has however, filed an affidavit-in-reply reiterating the stand taken in the main writ petition. ( 3 ) MR. Bholanath Sen and Mr. Samaraditya Pal, the learned counsels appearing for the petitioners have mainly argued that under Section 52 of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 every Scale of Rates and every statement of conditions framed by a Board under the foregoing provisions of this Chapter VI (Imposition and Recovery of Rates at Ports) shall be submitted to the Central Government for sanction and shall have effect when so sanctioned and published by the Board in the Official Gazette. In the instant case, no steps have been taken by the Board who imposed such penalty. Under Section 21 of the said Act a Board, may with the approval of the Central Government, specify - (a) the powers and duties conferred or imposed upon the Board by or under this Act, which may also be exercised or performed by the Chairman, and (b) the powers and duties conferred or imposed on the Chairman by or under this Act, which may also be exercised or performed by the Deputy Chairman or any officer of the Board and the conditions and restrictions, if any, subject to which such powers and duties- may be exercised and performed :provided that any powers and duties conferred or imposed upon the Deputy Chairman or any officer of the Board under clause (b) shall be exercised and performed by him subject to the supervision and control of the Chairman. It is mainly argued that in order to impose the penal rent the Board has neither sought any approval of the Central Government nor the Board can delegate its power to the Chairman without the approval of the Central Government. Any act done by the Chairman which is otherwise absolutely illegal cannot be ratified by the Board at a later stage to regularise the same. The scheme of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 has been framed so that the Board concerned of any Port may act consistently and the Central Government will have the authority to control and/or approve the proposed acts and actions. In the present case, steps are being taken to realise the triple rate of rent without having the approval and/or sanction of the Central Government and the entire action is bereft of any sanction in law and consequently the same is not enforceable. ( 4 ) MR. Bankim Chandra Dutt, learned Counsel appearing for the Calcutta Port Trust Authorities has drawn the attention of this Court to the entire frame and scheme as laid down in the Major Port Trusts Act and also the Scale of Rates as corrected upto the Notification No. 435, dated 23rd August, 1984. He has also drawn the attention of this Court that by resolution No. 425 dated 29th December, 1980 the Trustees authorised the Chairman, Deputy Chairman and the General Manager, Haldia Dock Complex to levy triple rent on uncleared imported consignment in the interest of port operations in anticipation of the Board's approval, the matter being placed before the Board at the next meeting for ratification. In January, 1981, the then General Manager, Haldia Dock Complex recommended imposition of penal rent @ 8 times in normal rent on all cargoes remaining uncleared for more than one month from the date of landing. Imposition of triple rent, was however, sanctioned by the Chairman under the strength of the authorisation granted by the Trustees as above and this was made effective from 1st of April, 1981. Subsequently, the Trustees by the resolution No. 49 dated 22nd February, 1982 sanctioned recovery of triple rent on all goods which were not taken delivery of within 30 days from the date of landing. Subsequently, the Trustees by the resolution No. 49 dated 22nd February, 1982 sanctioned recovery of triple rent on all goods which were not taken delivery of within 30 days from the date of landing. The said position of the Trustees was made effective at Calcutta from 1st March, 1983 but this could not be implemented at Haldia in view of the order of injunction passed in this case. It appeared from the extract of the proceedings of the meeting held on 28-5-1984 that since triple rent was recovered at Haldia for the period of 1st April, 1981 to 3rd June, 1981 in terms of the sanction accorded by the Chairman under the strength of the authorisation granted by the Trustees by the Resolution No. 425 dated 29th December, 1980, the matter was placed before the Board for ratification of the decision taken by the Chairman. This ratification has, however, been made subject to the final result of the present writ petition pending in this Hon'ble Court. Mr. Dutt has also submitted that the steps taken by the Port Trust Authorities are quite warranted in law and the allegations made by the petitioners are, not at all justified. ( 5 ) HAVING heard the arguments made by the learned Counsels of both sides and after going through the materials on record this Court finds that in order to make provisions for the Constitution of the Port Authorities for certain Major Ports in India and to vest the administration, control and management of such ports by any such authorities and for matters connected therewith the Major Port Trusts Act (Act 38 of 1963) was enacted. It will appear that the "board" in relation to a port, means the Board of Trustees constituted under this Act for that Port and the "chairman", means the Chairman of a Board and includes the person appointed to act in his place under Section 14. Chapter II deals with the Board of Trustees and Committees therewith. Section 21 of Chapter II clearly indicates inter alia that a Board may delegate its power to the Chairman, Deputy Chairman or any Officer of the Board with the approval of the Central Government provided that any powers and duties conferred or imposed upon the Deputy Chairman or any officer of the Board under clause (b) shall be exercised and performed by him subject to supervision and control of the Chairman. It is however clear that there is power of delegation by the Board with the approval of the Central Government. It will be found from Chapter VI of the said Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 dealing with imposition and/or recovery of rates at Ports. Section 52 clearly lays down that every Scale of Rates and every statement of conditions framed by a Board under the foregoing provisions of this Chapter shall be submitted to the Central Government for sanction and shall have effect when so sanctioned and published by the Board in the Official Gazette. Pursuant to such provisions of law there is Scale of Rates (Schedule of Charges) as already approved by the Central Government. It will be seen from Section 6a (vi) that on general import cargo sold in public auction by the Trustees, rent will be charged at the rates given in the schedule below on the expiry of free time although clear working days after the day the goods are available for delivery. The Trustees reserve to themselves the right to charge three times the rates given in the schedule below on any goods which in their opinion would have been removed from their premises before the rent was incurred. It is thus very much clear that the Trustees have already reserved to themselves the right to charge three times the rates and this Scale of Rates within Schedule of Charges has already been approved by the Central Government. No further requirement of Section 52 is called for in the instant case. While the Board has already reserved the right, the same can be delegated. Once this Scale of Rates has been approved no question can be raised as to the absence of the approval to delegate its function to the Chairman if the Board legally ratifies the action of the Chairman. The Board has thus certainly the power to impose the triple rent as proposed in the instant case and no further approval of the Central Government is at all necessary. Once the Board has the power to impose the penalty the Board has the power to ratify the action of the Chairman in this case. The question of delegation does not arise in the strict sense of the term, as the Chairman being the delegated authority, has only imposed the rate of triple rent. Once the Board has the power to impose the penalty the Board has the power to ratify the action of the Chairman in this case. The question of delegation does not arise in the strict sense of the term, as the Chairman being the delegated authority, has only imposed the rate of triple rent. On the other hand, the Chairman having the general authorisation to act for the Board has made the decision and the said decision being ratified by the Board, becomes a decision of the Board itself. Once a decision becomes the act of the Board, the question of further approval of the Central Government is not at all necessary. Looking at the framing of the Act and the scope of Scale of Rates (Schedule of Charges) and other connected resolutions of the Board of Trustees and the materials on record, this Court does not find that the impugned circular is otherwise vitiated in law. The acts done and/or caused to have been done by the Port Trust Authorities are not contrary to and inconsistent with either the provisions of the Major Port Trusts Act and/or the Scale of Rates (Schedule of Charges ). It is also incidentally not appreciated by this Court that an importer may bring the goods from outside and may allow the goods to remain for an indefinite period will be entitled to pay the usual rates treating the space provided by the Port Authorities as its own godown. If this act is permitted, the operational facility in the port area will be very much difficult and it necessitates imposition of penal rents by triple rent after the expiration of the reasonable period of one month. Besides, there is legal sanction to impose such rates discussed above. Accordingly, the writ petition has no merits of its own. The same is thus rejected without any order as to costs. All interim orders are vacated.