JUDGMENT The Court: In this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners No. 1 and 2 which are registered Stevedores' Associations along with a few private Stevedore Companies have challenged the validity and legality of the purported decision of the Calcutta Port Trust Authorities that the CPT would carry on exclusively by itself stuffing and destuffing of containers at the newly built Container Freight Station in the Container Terminal at D. Netaji Subhas Dock. 2. The petitioners' case is that their members along with others carry on the business of stevedoring at the Port of Calcutta. For this purpose they are duly registered with the Calcutta Port Trust Authorities as well as Calcutta Dock Labour Board. Licences for stevedoring work was formerly issued under Calcutta Port Trust (Licensing of Stevedores) Regulations, 1985 and on and from 24th December, 1987. the Calcutta Port Trust (Licensing of Stevedores) Regulations, 1987 framed by the Board of Trustees for the Port of Calcutta, which control and regulate issuance of such licences. Chairman, CPT, Respondent no. 2 herein actually issues such licences. As would be evident from Regulation 3(1) of the 1987 Regulations, that the licensed stevedores can operate in all areas of the Port in carrying out their stevedoring work including stuffing/destuffing of containers, landing of goods from ships and shipping of goods by loading on board. 3. Under the Calcutta Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Scheme, 1970 such loading and unloading and stuffing and destuffing are necessarily to be performed with the workers of the Dock Labour Board and the Stevedores using such workers become Registered Employers of the Dock Labour Board. 4. On 30th Jan., 1988, the Calcutta Port Trust obtained a stevedoring licence for itself granted by its own Chairman and thereafter registered itself as a Registered Employer with the Calcutta Dock Labour Board. Since then the Calcutta Port Trust has started carrying on the business of stevedoring at the Port in competition with the members of the petitioners No. 1 & 2. 5. Loading and discharge of cargo to and from vessels on quayline are done by the stevedores. Receiving such cargo at qwiyline and moving them to the adjacent shed for ultimate delivery to the consignees are done by the CPT Workers. 5. Loading and discharge of cargo to and from vessels on quayline are done by the stevedores. Receiving such cargo at qwiyline and moving them to the adjacent shed for ultimate delivery to the consignees are done by the CPT Workers. In the case of loading the CPT workers bring the cargo from sheds to the vessels hook point wherefrom the cargo is loaded by the stevedores on to the vessels, stow in the vessel's hold/hatch and secure them as per requirement of the vessel and its principal. In the case of container cargoes, stevedores' stuff the export cargo into containers at the yard and thereafter move the stuffed boxes for shipment on Board. Similarly, import cargo in containers are destuffed by the stevedores at the yard moving the same thereto from the ship. The loading and unloading work to and from vessels including stuffing and destuffing containers are done by the stevedores employing workers of the Dock Labour Board. Their wages as per schedule are paid by stevedores. Necessary and suitable cargo handling gears and equipments for loading and unloading are provided by the stevedores. 6. For various services and infrastructural facilities offered by the Port Authority, charges under different heads are realised by the Port Authority. The functions of the port authority is to develop and maintain the port and its related infrastructural facilities and to allow user of the same against tariffs as per schedules. The Board is required to look after the Port administration. The stevedores are appointed by the ship owner and/or their Agents or the cargo interests as per the contract of carriage and as per their requirement. The stevedores are paid stevedorage at rates negotiated and mutually agreed upon. 7. Containerisation of cargo is comparatively of recent origin. Although handling of cargo in containers has been introduced in other parts of the world long back, in and around 1977-78 containers in small numbers started coming to this port. Some container feeder vessels also started carrying cargo in containers from Calcutta. No infrastructural facility was available for container handling at the Port of Calcutta at the initial stage. However, the Port Authority due to pressure from the trade provided berths to container vessels at one or more of the existing berths including at the area where the disputed Container Complex is now situated. No infrastructural facility was available for container handling at the Port of Calcutta at the initial stage. However, the Port Authority due to pressure from the trade provided berths to container vessels at one or more of the existing berths including at the area where the disputed Container Complex is now situated. The Stevedores arranged for discharge from and loading of containers to vessels with ship's gears and for transportation of the containers to and from yard with private equipments. The stevedores did the work of stuffing and destuffing of cargo to and from containers. Additional documentation jobs relating to container handling was also undertaken by the stevedores. Additional gears and equipments for container handling had to be provided by the stevedores. Extra-personnel for ancillary work relating to container handling were appointed by the stevedores. Container handling offices and additional gear godown within the port and maintenance of the same had also to be arranged by the stevedores. Thus, the stevedores have been rendering very valuable services right from the beginning for development of container traffic at the Port of Calcutta. 8. Container traffic started increasing yielding substantial revenue to the CPT. There was a demand that CPT should construct a suitable Container Complex with necessary gears and equipments to cope with the increased container traffic and accordingly, the Board of Trustees for the Port of Calcutta decided to set up a Container complex at Netaji Subhas Dock with modern infrastructural facilities. Accordingly, D-NSD has been developed and is now being used exclusively for containerised cargo. The stevedores have been using D-NSD complex along with the existing sheds for stuffing and destuffing of container cargo. 9. As the container complex at D-NSD was nearing completion the Board and other respondents indicated that at the container Complex stuffing and destuffing work would be done exclusively by the CPT acting as stevedore and the existing stevedores will be excluded from using the complex. The petitioners raised objection but as would be evident from the Minutes of the discussion held on 19th June, 1992 between the respondent No. 1 and the representatives of the petitioners (vide An. C), the respondents communicated to the petitioners that a decision had already been taken that CPT would use the Container Complex exclusively for the purpose of stuffing and destuffing of import-export cargo. C), the respondents communicated to the petitioners that a decision had already been taken that CPT would use the Container Complex exclusively for the purpose of stuffing and destuffing of import-export cargo. It is the contention of the petitioners' that under the Major Port Trust Act various regulations have been framed which do not enable and empower the Board to exclude its competitor stevedores from operating in a port area, wherein they were already operating on the basis of licences issued. The newly built shed at the Container complex with ancillary facilities are nothing but extension and modernisation of infra structural facilities which are meant to be used by all port users against charges as may be specified by the Board. To exclude the stevedores from the .same in order that the CPT acting as stevedore can use the same by way of monopoly will be against all norms and statutory provisions. Hence by filing the instant writ petition the petitioners have prayed for issuance of writs of mandamus commanding the respondents to withdraw and cancel the impugned decision whereby the stevedores will be excluded from using the Container Complex and CPT alone shall use the same; and permit the petitioners and their members to operate in all areas in the Calcutta Docks including the Container Freight Station for stuffing/destuffing containers in accordance with law. 10. On the other hand, the respondents' case is that containerisation of cargo although came into existence in a small way in 1977 onwards, the CPT could not provide any handling facility for which the steamer-agents who were bringing the containers had to engage private handling Agents through their stevedores for stuffing and destuffing of containers. There was a steady increase of container traffic but no matching investment was made either by the steamer-agents or by the stevedores or their handling Agents by bringing in modern equipments. As a result, though the traffic increased considerably productivity fell sharply and at the same time handling rates of these Agents increased continuously in a monopolistic environment. It has been stated that the stevedoring charges in Calcutta Port are the highest in the country and by way of illustration such charge at Major Ports have been given as follows: Bombay : Rs. 2,500/- Madras : Rs. 3,000/- Haldia : Rs. 1,400/- Cal. Port : Rs. 7,800/- 11. It has been stated that the stevedoring charges in Calcutta Port are the highest in the country and by way of illustration such charge at Major Ports have been given as follows: Bombay : Rs. 2,500/- Madras : Rs. 3,000/- Haldia : Rs. 1,400/- Cal. Port : Rs. 7,800/- 11. The estimated cost at CPTs newly built container Terminal will be around Rs. 4,400/-. 12. It has been alleged that the stevedores never challeged the right of the Port Authority to the exclusive use of the Container Terminal nor did they assert that exclusive use of the Container Terminal by the CPT would amount to violation of the conditions of the licences granted to them. The apprehension of the stevedores that there would be reduction in container business available to the stevedores is without foundation. From the recorded notes of discussion held on June 19th, 1992, it is clear that the Port Trust would undertake handling of only LCL import-export container constituting only about 15 per cent of the container traffic and the rest 85 per cent be left to the steamer-agents to be done by the stevedores or handling contractors but outside the newly built terminal. Stuffing and destuffing of both FCL and LCL containers shipped/landed from vessels working at berths other than the new terminal would continue to be handled by the stevedores as done by them previously. Furthermore, with the functioning of the new Container Terminal and speedier disposal of container traffic, there would be more room available at other berths which could be utilised by the stevedores and as a result, it is expected that the container traffic would increase at least by about 20 per cent. Because of functioning of the Container Terminal the stevedore would actually gain in to a volume of business of container traffic. Furthermore, there will be no question of Port Authorities monopolising function of container traffic to the exclusion of the stevedores. The Port Authorities by charging a very reasonable rate at the new Container Complex which is about 20 per cent less than the rate charged by the stevedores would be encouraging foreign vessels with containers to come to Calcutta. 13. It has been stated that the Container Complex has been built at a cost of 30 crores of rupees out of which about 14 crores were taken as ADB loan at a high rate of interest. 13. It has been stated that the Container Complex has been built at a cost of 30 crores of rupees out of which about 14 crores were taken as ADB loan at a high rate of interest. CPT also invested large sums of money for providing equipment and facilities for handling of container traffic. There will be no hardship to the Calcutta Dock Labour Board Workers also. Further assertion is that the stevedores are prosperous businessmen who without significant investment have held international container traffic to ransom at the Port of Calcutta. It is also a question whether private interest of stevedores could be allowed to ride over major public interest and the future of Calcutta Port as cost of stuffing and destuffing of container traffic cannot be allowed to spiral up while the CPT would continue to invest more and more to modernise the facilities available in the port. 14. Upon such pleadings of the parties the question for consideration is how far the decision of the Board to carry on exclusively stuffing and destuffing of LCL container cargo at the newly built Container Freight Station to the exclusion of the licensed stevedores is a monopoly granted by the Board unto itself and whether the decision is arbitrary unreasonable and violative of the relevant provisions of the Constitution of India. 15. The Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 (Act 38 of 1963) as amended by the Major Port Trusts (Amendment) Act, 1974, has been made applicable to the Port of Calcutta on and from 1st February, 1975. The very preamble of the Act makes it clear that the Act was enacted to provide for the Constitution of port authorities for certain major ports and to vest the administration, control and management of such ports in such authorities. The Board of Trustees constituted under section 3 of the Act represents all sections of persons dealing with the port and is a body corporate. All property, assets and funds and right to levy rates and impose penalty for breach of any Regulation vest in the Board which is also empowered to make regulations not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act. Section 42 of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 runs as follows: "42. All property, assets and funds and right to levy rates and impose penalty for breach of any Regulation vest in the Board which is also empowered to make regulations not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act. Section 42 of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 runs as follows: "42. Performance of services by Board or other person.- (1) A Board shall have power to undertake the following services:- (a) landing, shipping or transhipping passengers and goods between vessels in the port and the wharves, piers, quays or docks belonging to or in the possession of the Board; (b) receiving, removing, shifting, transporting or delivering goods brought within the Boards's premises; (c) carrying passengers by rail or by other means within the limits of the port or port approaches, subject to such restrictions and conditions as the Central Government may think fit to impose; (d) receiving and delivering, transporting and booking and despatching goods originating in the vessels in the port and intended for carriage by the neighbouring railways, or vice versa as a railway administration under the Indian Railways Act, 1890; and (e) piloting, hauling, mooring, remooring, booking or measuring vessels or any other service in respect of vessels; (2) A Board may, if so requested by the owner, take charge of the goods for the purpose of performing the service and shall give a receipt in such form as the Board may specify. (3) .............................." 16. Stevedoring licence was formerly granted under clause 4A of the Bylaws for the Port of Calcutta. Since December 24, 1987 Calcutta Port Trust (Licensing of Stevedores) Regulations 1987, framed by the Board of Trustees for the Port of Calcutta hold the filed. Clause 3 of the said Regulations runs as follows: "3. Issue of Stevedoring Licence.-(1) The Chairman may issue stevedoring licences for a period of two years, on application to persons to act as stevedores at the port to perform the work of landing and shipping of goods between vessels in the port and the wharves, piers, quays, or docks belonging to or in the possession of the Board and any other work involved in the Stevedoring of vessels within the port. (2) No stevedore shall be allowed to work on board any vessel in the port except under a licence issued by the Chairman under these regulations." In clause 5, Duties and responsibilities of a stevedore, it is categorically provided: "(a) he shall carry out the operations with the gear owned or hired by him". Form B appended to the said regulation read with the condition of licence granted to a stevedore (vide licence given to M/s. T. P. Roy Chowdhury & Co., petitioner No. 4 herein for the year 1992-94 as submitted by the respondents) the following conditions of the licence which are common in respect of all the licensees are very relevant: (b) he shall carry out the operations with the gear owned or hired by him; (g) if any gear, plant and other property of the Port Trust is damaged in the course of any operation the stevedore shall compensate the Board for such loss or damage, the extent of which shall be decided by the Chairman after carrying out proper enquiry; (m) he shall provide all the necessary gear, equipment duly tested for the respective type of cargo (n) he shall produce the gear equipment with necessary annealing and test certificates, for inspection periodically or whenever demanded by the Inspector, Dock Safety or the Traffic Manager;" 17. From the above statutory provisions and the express conditions of licences issued to the stevedores, it is evident that all properties in the port including its land, building, fittings and fixtures belong to the Board and that the stevedores are given licences to carry on the work of loading and unloading to and from vessels as steamer-agents or agents of consignor/consignee. Mr. Goutam Chakraborty, learned Counsel, appearing for the respondents has tabled two sketch maps for facility of understanding. From these maps it appears that the Port of Calcutta has several docks lying over a vast stretch of the river bank, including the Netaji Subhas Dock where the old D. shed has been converted into the Container Terminal. It appears that after a ship enters through the lockgate it may be taken to D. shed where containers will be unloaded on the quay Head and while Full container load (FCL) may be taken out for direct delivery, less container loads (LCL) will be taken to Container Park Yard (CPY) where Tyre-mounted Gantry cranes have been installed. It appears that after a ship enters through the lockgate it may be taken to D. shed where containers will be unloaded on the quay Head and while Full container load (FCL) may be taken out for direct delivery, less container loads (LCL) will be taken to Container Park Yard (CPY) where Tyre-mounted Gantry cranes have been installed. From the parking yard the LCL containers will be taken to Container Freight Station (CFS) which is nothing but a modern shed where stuffing and destuffing of LCL containers will be made for delivery or receipt of cargo. CPT proposes to handle the LCL containers exclusively by itself at CFS leaving handling of FCL there by the stevedores. Handling of all container traffic at all other docks shall also be continued to be done by the stevedores as at present. 18. It is said, as also not denied that LCL Cargo at D-NSD shall be only 15 per cent of the total container cargo and accordingly the rest 85 per cent shall remain to be handled by the stevedores. It has been emphasised that such LCL container handling departmentally or as a stevedore by the CPT shall reduce the cost of container handling at Calcutta Port, which is now highest in India and that once this system is put to operation there shall be less congestion, which again will usher in more container vessels to this port to the ultimate benefit of the stevedores and the public at large. 19. This being the position, it strikes strange how the stevedores can claim that they be also allowed to handle LCL containers at the container Freight Station built and modernised at huge cost by the CPT. Hearing Mr. Bhasker Gupta, Learned Counsel, for the petitioners I wondered how the petitioners who have been given licences to do only a very small part of the job relating to the entire port system viz., loading and unloading to and from ships as agents of consignor/consignee against stevedorage, can claim rights at par with the owner/Licensor of the entire port system without any liability therefor. They would, as if, savour the cream without having to maintain or milch the cows. It is beyond my comprehension why collectively they should not come forward with proposals for erection of Freight Stations with Gantry cranes etc. at other docks of the port at their own cost. They would, as if, savour the cream without having to maintain or milch the cows. It is beyond my comprehension why collectively they should not come forward with proposals for erection of Freight Stations with Gantry cranes etc. at other docks of the port at their own cost. After all they have enjoyed the monopolistic environment too long a period and are apparently prosperous businessmen. They can even now make some capital investments for the purpose of development and moderisation of container handling at other dock areas and reap the benefit in the long run. How do they assert that they have only right and no duty, here duty should include planning for the future. Having obtained licences from the Port Authority they fix their own charges and keep the margin. It does not appear that they ever thought of doing something collectively to reduce the cost of container handling and attract more container traffic to this port. Instead, as and when the owner/licensor investing huge amount makes a new Freight Station for the purpose of doing the job themselves in order that the cost of handling is reduced considerably and congestion in loading or unloading is cleared quickly, these people will clamour that their licences are encroached upon and the owner/licensor is after monopolising the trade. This is hardly acceptable. 20. Mr. Bhaskar Gupta submitted that there is no provision in the MPT Act which enables or empowers the respondent No.1 to exclude its competitor stevedores from operating in a port area where they are already operating under valid licences. True, there is no provision in the Act for exclusion but there is also no provision in the Act for inclusion, either. Not only the Act, but also the conditions of licences granted to the stevedores do not iterate that the Board is bound to allow them to use the new container terminal or that the stevedores are being licensed to handle every container traffic in every area of the Calcutta Port. The work of the stevedores consists of loading and unloading cargo to and from vessels on the quayline and nothing else. This they do as agents of the steamer-company or the cargo-owners. Licences are given to enable them to do the job. The work of the stevedores consists of loading and unloading cargo to and from vessels on the quayline and nothing else. This they do as agents of the steamer-company or the cargo-owners. Licences are given to enable them to do the job. There is no contractual obligation to give them a particular or adequate job, the Board or the CPT can under-take the Job departmentally by virtue of the provision of the statute and as owner of the port with control, management and administration vested in it. There is no doubt that the Board may for sufficient reason restrict the stevedores from doing all or any of stevedoring work. Sufficient reason as is forthcoming is that whereas stevedoring charge is gradually on the increase to the detriment of the trade the Board itself can do the job at a much lesser cost and usher in more container cargo in the over all interest of the stevedores and the country, Mr. Gupta's contention in this respect fails. 21. Mr. Gupta's next contention is that the newly built container Freight station is nothing but extension and modernisation of port's infrastructural facilities and all stevedores are to be allowed user of the same against specified charges. The answer to this is the same that is to say, being the owner of the entire port the Board may keep to itself the right to use a new facility built and developed with its own fund and that licensing of stevedores does not mean that the stevedores are to be allowed to enjoy all future improvements and facilities brought about by the Board at its own cost. There can be no question of allowing them to enjoy the improvement and facilities against extra charges, for that would be passed over and only escalate the container handling charge thereby frustrating the very purpose for which these have been made. As per conditions for the licence they have to bring their own gear and equipment. Why should not they take steps for improving container handling at other docks on terms as may be settled between the CPT and their associations, is a question which remains unanswered. 22. Mr. As per conditions for the licence they have to bring their own gear and equipment. Why should not they take steps for improving container handling at other docks on terms as may be settled between the CPT and their associations, is a question which remains unanswered. 22. Mr. Gupta further argued that the stevedoring licence is granted to handle cargo including container cargo at all the points of the port and to exclude the stevedores from using the container Freight Station (CFS) in respect of LCL container is to put unnecessary fetter upon their work encouraging monopoly by the CPT. They have the right to move about and attend to all types of cargo handling at any part of the Port. To this Mr. Goutam Chakraborty, learned Counsel, appearing for respondents quipped, if the prayer of the petitioners are allowed that would amount to giving them a blank cheque for user of the properties of the Board which may amount to allowing them to use even the office of the Clacutta Port Trust at the Netaji Subhas Dock if one is set up therein. It is well settled that monopoly is not created where there is legislative backing. In the instant case MPT Act enables the Board to do the job exclusively by itself and hence question of creating monopoly by the CPT cannot and does not arise. Furthermore the CPT would do only 15 percent of the trade and the rest 85 per cent would be left to be done by the petitioners. How then the question of monopoly would arise is beyond my guess. 23. Mr. Chakraborty in this connexion submitted that handling of LCL container cargo at D-NSD exclusively by the CPT is a policy decision which Court in its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot interfere with. To this Mr. Gupta pointed out that where policy decision suffers from the vires of arbitrariness, unreasonableness and is opposed to natural justice, Court can certainly strike down such a decision. But where is the arbitrariness or unreasonableness or violation of the principles of natural justice? The Board is a body corporate representing all sections of the people dealing with the port. Gupta pointed out that where policy decision suffers from the vires of arbitrariness, unreasonableness and is opposed to natural justice, Court can certainly strike down such a decision. But where is the arbitrariness or unreasonableness or violation of the principles of natural justice? The Board is a body corporate representing all sections of the people dealing with the port. After giving due hearing to the petitioners and their representatives if the Board took a decision to handle exclusively a very small part of the container cargo at the new container complex, developed and modernised with its own found and risk, no arbitrariness or unreasonableness or violation of natural justice in my view can be spelt out for such a decision. 24. Mr. Chakraborty vehemently urged that the writ petition is not maintainable as no writ of mandamus can be issued where there is no allegation that any legal right of the petitioner has been violated and that nothing has been shown to demonstrate that the decision of the respondent is illegal or contrary to any statutory provision. Mr. Chakraborty in this connexion has placed his reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1977 SC 276 (Mani Subrat Jain vs. State of Haryana and Ors.) where it was held : "It is elementary though it is to be restated that no one can ask for a mandamus without a legal right. There must be a judicially enforceable right as a legally protected right before one suffering a legal grievance can ask for a mandamus. A person can be said to be aggrieved only when a person is denied a legal right by some one who has legal duty to do something or to abstain from doing something (See Halsbury's Laws of England 4th Ed. Vol. 1, Paragraph 122); State of Haryana vs. Subhas Chander, (1974) 1 SCR 165 : AIR 1973 SC 2216 ; Jashbhai Motibhai Desai vs. Roshan Kumar Haji Bashir Ahmed, (1976) 3 SCR 53 : AIR 1976 SC 578 and Ferris Extraordinary Legal Remedies Paragraph 198."Vide paragraph 9 of the report. 25. Vol. 1, Paragraph 122); State of Haryana vs. Subhas Chander, (1974) 1 SCR 165 : AIR 1973 SC 2216 ; Jashbhai Motibhai Desai vs. Roshan Kumar Haji Bashir Ahmed, (1976) 3 SCR 53 : AIR 1976 SC 578 and Ferris Extraordinary Legal Remedies Paragraph 198."Vide paragraph 9 of the report. 25. The learned Counsel further referred to the decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1987 SC 331 (State of Kerala vs. A. Lakshmikutty) herein relying on its earlier decision in Mani Subrat's case the Hon'ble Court in paragraph 33 observed as follows:- "It is well settled that a writ of mandamus is not a writ of course or a writ of right but is, as a rule, discretionary. There must be a judicially enforceable right for the enforcement of which a mandamus will lie. ........................... In general, therefore, the Court will only enforce the performance of statutory duties by public bodies on application of a person who can show that he has himself a legal right to insist on such performance". Needless to point out that the petitioners have miserably failed to show what is the legal right which is being violated by excluding them from handling LCL container cargo at the new Container Complex and accordingly their prayer for issuance of a writ of mandamus must fail. 26. Upon considering the facts, circumstances and materials on records I have no hesitation to hold that the petitioners have failed to sustain their case and accordingly the writ petition is liable to be and the same is dismissed herewith. There shall be no order as to costs. All interim orders are vacated. Application dismissed.