Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 526 (KAR)

K. RAMACHANDRA NAYAK v. MANGALORE PORT (OLD PORT)

2000-07-26

V.GOPALA GOWDA

body2000
GOPALA GOWDA, J. ( 1 ) IN these Writ Petitions the petitioners are the lessees of port land. They are aggrieved by the imposition of penalty and seek to quash the impugned demand notices. The main contention of the petitioners is that the Port Officer who has issued the impugned demand notices has no power or authority under Rule 20 of the karnataka Port (Landing and Shipping Fees) Rule 1964 (hereinafter referred to Rules in short) to impose the penalty as the amount of penalty is in excess of Rs. 100/-, urging various contentions and placed reliance upon the Notification dated 11. 9. 1981. ( 2 ) STATEMENT of objections if filed by the respondents justifying the imposition of penalty upon the petitioners in all these petitions and have prayed for dismissal of these Writ Petitions, as holding there is no merit in these petitions. ( 3 ) UNDER Rule 20 of the Rules referred to above, the Port Officer can impose penalty not exceeding one hundred rupees and in any other case by the Director of Ports and Inland Water Transport. In the instant cases, the penalties imposed by the Port Officer upon the petitioners by the impugned demand notices are in excess of one hundred rupees, therfore he had no power to impose penalty above one hundred rupees upon the petitioners. Hence the imposition of penalty upon the petitioners by the Port Officer is without competence under Rule 20 of the Rules for the reason that the provision of Section 4 of the KP (L and SF) Act 1961 the State government has framed the Rules referred to supra conferring powers upon the State Government to exercise their powers by such officers as prescribed under Rule 20 of the Rules namely the Officers of the Ports for imposing the penalty upon the licensees who are in occupation of the premises of the port. Rule 20 of the Rules, confer power upon such officers depends upon the quantum of money that is required to be imposed as penalty on the licensees under the provisions of the Act and Rules. Therefore the imposition of penalty upon the petitioners by passing the impugned orders by the Port officer are bad in law as the port officer was not competent to pass orders and impose penalty amount beyond Rs. 100/ -. Therefore the impugned orders are liable to be quashed. Therefore the imposition of penalty upon the petitioners by passing the impugned orders by the Port officer are bad in law as the port officer was not competent to pass orders and impose penalty amount beyond Rs. 100/ -. Therefore the impugned orders are liable to be quashed. ( 4 ) THAT apart, before imposing the penalty by the first respondent up on the petitioners, no notices were issued to the petitioners as required under the provisions of the Act and the Rules as the demand notices demanding penalty amount from them entails serious civil consequences upon them. Therefore the impugned demand notices issued to the petitioners are also violative of the principles of natural justice and therefore they are liable to be quashed. ( 5 ) THE impugned demand notices are contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court reported in the case of HINDUSTAN STEEL ltd. vs STATE OF ORRISA the Apex Court has held that "an order imposing penalty for failure to carry out a statutory obligation is the result of a quasi-criminal proceedings and penalty will not ordinarily be imposed unless the party obliged either acted deliberately in defiance of law or was guilty of conduct contumacious or dishonest, or acted in conscious disregard of is obligation. Penalty will not also be imposed merely because it is lawful to do so. Whether penalty should be imposed for failure to perform a statutory obligation is a matter of discretion of the authority to be exercised judicially and on a consideration of all the relevant circumstances. " By reading the impugned penalty demand notices are not in conformity with the provisions of the Act and Rules referred to supra and the law laid down by the Apex Court, as the respondents have not complied with the statutory provisions of the Act and no findings are recorded holding that imposition of the penalties by the Authority was warranted as the petitioners have deliberately defied the law with reference to the facts and evidence in support of the findings and therefore this court has to record a finding holding that the first respondent has not exercised his power at the time of issuing the impugned notices imposing penalties upon the petitioners. Hence the impugned notices are liable to be quashed. ( 6 ) FOR the reasons stated supra, these Writ Petitions are allowed. Hence the impugned notices are liable to be quashed. ( 6 ) FOR the reasons stated supra, these Writ Petitions are allowed. Rule made absolute, the impugned demand notices are quashed. However, the respondents are at liberty to exercise their power strictly in conformity with the provisions of the Act, Rules and the law laid down in this regard, if they are so advised and facts warranted to impose the penalty upon the petitioners. --- *** --- .