JAYATA KUMAR BISWAS, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is against the Judgment and order dated 5th March 1998 passed by the learned single Judge in Writ Petition No. 6 of 1998. The appellants were the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 in the said writ petition, which was filed by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein (hereinafter referred to as "the writ petitioners" ). ( 2 ) THE Calcutta Port trust (in short "c. P. T. ") debited Rs. 1,16,134. 00 to the deposit account of the writ petitioner No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as "empress Shipping" ). The amount was debited on account of demurrage charges for the period from 10th November 1995 to 23rd October 1997 levied on a cargo loaded export container. In the concerned bill Empress Shipping was shown by the C. P. T. as the agent of the said container. The learned Judge by the impugned judgment and order held that such action of the C. P. T. was illegal, and allowed the writ petition with costs and consequential directions for refund of the amount and release of the container. ( 3 ) IN May 1995 Empress Shipping let out a container on rental basis to one M/s. Jain Exports. It was container No. TPXU 6510105 meant to be shipped for export of the loaded cargo owned by the said M/s. Jain Exports. By letter dated 25th August 1995 the Preventive Officer of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence informed Empress shipping that permission of shipping of the said loaded export container would remain held up till the examination of the cargo loaded therein was over. The C. P. T. also, by a letter dated 25th August 1995, sent through the dock site office of Empress shipping, informed it that the shipping would not be allowed till further order from the Preventive Officer of the Directorate of revenue Intelligence. On 26th August 1995, the officials of the said Directorate opened the said container, drew the samples of the export cargo loaded therein, and duly sealed the same. The authorities found that while the declared cargo was 200 cases of ophthalmic lenses (piano), the cargo loaded in the said container was actually low valued ordinary glass pieces. ( 4 ) IN the circumstances, Empress Shipping, as agent, by its letter dated 5th September 1995 cancelled the Mate's Receipt no. The authorities found that while the declared cargo was 200 cases of ophthalmic lenses (piano), the cargo loaded in the said container was actually low valued ordinary glass pieces. ( 4 ) IN the circumstances, Empress Shipping, as agent, by its letter dated 5th September 1995 cancelled the Mate's Receipt no. 73 dated 22nd august 1995 earlier issued by it for the cargo stuffed into the said container; and informed the C. P. T. that on receiving clearance from the Preventive Officer of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence it would issue fresh Mate's Receipt for some other vessel for shipping the said cargo. ( 5 ) IN connection with the attempted shipping of the said cargo, a notice to show cause dated 23rd February 1996 was issued by the office of the Commissioner of Customs, calcutta; it was issued under Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962 read with rule 16 of the Customs and Central Excise Duty drawback Rules, 1971. It was mentioned in the said notice that, apparently, in order to fraudulently obtain huge amounts of duty drawback, the sixteen persons named therein. Including the persons connected with the said M/s. Jain Exports, were involved in the fraudulent exports of low valued ordinary glass pieces by falsely declaring them as ophthalmic lenses (piano); and thus, besides already defrauding the Government of India to the tune of Rupees 46,10,700. 00 towards duty drawback, they attempted to defraud the Government to the tune of Rs. 16,92,000. 00 by claiming duty drawback for the attempted fraudulent export of the cargo seized and sealed in the said container. By a subsequent notice dated 8th April 1996 the office of the Commissioner of Customs, Calcutta supplemented the said show cause notice by incorporating further materials revealed in course of further investigation. ( 6 ) IN the abovementioned situation, by a letter dated 11th April 1996 Empress Shipping again informed the C. P. T. that since the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence withheld the shipment, it was not in a position to ship the cargo stuffed into the said container for export till clearance was received from the said Directorate. It also informed the C. P. T. that the said Directorate was not allowing it to de-stuff the cargo into a customs bonded warehouse, and have its container released. It also informed the C. P. T. that the said Directorate was not allowing it to de-stuff the cargo into a customs bonded warehouse, and have its container released. ( 7 ) WHILE things were lying at the stages narrated above, by the debit voucher dated 3rd October, 1997 (Annexure 'f' to the writ petition) the C. P. T. informed Empress Shipping about debiting to its deposit account a sum of Rs. 33,684. 00, on account of demurrage charges for operation of the said container during the period from 10th November, 1995 to 2nd October, 1996. Similarly, by the container-bill-statement dated 23rd october, 1997 (Annexure 'e' to the writ petition)the C. P. T. informed Empress Shipping about debiting Rs. 82,450. 00 on account of demurrage charges levied on the said cargo loaded export container for the period from 3rd October, 1996 to 23rd October, 1997. Thus, in all, a sum of Rs. 1,16,134. 00 was levied by the C. P. T, against empress Shipping towards demurrage charges on the said loaded export container. In the container-bill-statement Empress shipping was shown as the "container agent" in respect of the said loaded export container. ( 8 ) CHALLENGING the action of levying such demurrage charges by the said debit voucher and container-bill-statement, the writ petition was filed on 6th January 1998. In the container-bill-statement Empress shipping was shown as the "container agent" in respect of the said loaded export container. ( 8 ) CHALLENGING the action of levying such demurrage charges by the said debit voucher and container-bill-statement, the writ petition was filed on 6th January 1998. The action of the C. P. T. was challenged by raising the following contentions: (a) neither empress Shipping gave any misdeclaration of the cargo, nor was it a party to the proceedings initiated by the authorities; hence it was entitled to have its container released; (b) from time to time, both orally and in writing, empress Shipping requested the officers of both the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence and the C. P. T. to de-stuff the cargo and release its container; but the said authorities did not take any step; (c) the container was detained contrary to wishes of empress Shipping; so it could not be penalized by asking to pay demurrage charges; (d) in any case, the C. P. T. was not entitled to debit the purported charges to the open, current, and mutual account maintained by empress Shipping as shipping agent with the C. P. T. ; and (e) levying demurrage charges by the C. P. T. , in the face of its own failure to de-stuff the cargo and release the container, was arbitrary, unjust, and an action taken in colourable exercise of powers. Raising the aforesaid contentions, the writ petition was filed praying (i) for quashing of the action taken by the C. P. T. ; and also (ii) for directions upon the C. P. T. (a) to credit the debited amounts back to the account of Empress shipping, and (b) to release the said container in its favour. ( 9 ) THE C. P. T. contested the writ petition without filing any affidavit-in-opposition. But the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence filed an affidavit-in-opposition to the writ petition. The Directorate contended that as the customs authorities, who issued the show cause notice, were not made parties, the writ petition was not maintainable. By filing an affidavit-in-reply the writ petitioners stated that they were not aware of the show cause notice issued by the customs authorities, and in any case, the customs authorities were not necessary parties to the case. By filing an affidavit-in-reply the writ petitioners stated that they were not aware of the show cause notice issued by the customs authorities, and in any case, the customs authorities were not necessary parties to the case. ( 10 ) WITH the aforesaid materials on record, the learned Judge took up the final hearing of the writ petition, and by the impugned judgment and order allowed the same. The findings of the learned Judge may be summed up in the following manner: (a) no submissions were made by the C. P. T. to justify the levying of demurrage charges for the period when it did not allow the container to be removed, though it might not have allowed the removal at the instance of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence; (b)in the absence of any submissions to justify the levying of demurrage charges, the action of the C. P. T. must be held to be bad; (c)the remedy for the C. P. T. , if any, lay against the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, as held in Padam Kumar Agarwalla v. The Additional collector of Custom, AIR 1972 SC 542 ; the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence failed to show any provision of law under which it had a right to detain the container; (e) the goods were seized under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962, as was apparent from the show cause notice, wherein no reference was made to the container; (f) in terms of Section 110 (2) of the Customs Act, 1962, in the absence of a show cause notice issued under Section 124 thereof within six months from the date of seizure, the seized goods were to be released; (g) admittedly, in the proceedings initiated no allegation was made against the writ petitioners; and (h)the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence conceded that it had no objection, if the container was released to the writ petitioners. ( 11 ) ON 26th March, 1998 the C. P. T. filed an application before the learned single judge praying for recalling of the impugned judgment and order dated 5th March 1998. ( 11 ) ON 26th March, 1998 the C. P. T. filed an application before the learned single judge praying for recalling of the impugned judgment and order dated 5th March 1998. It was stated in the said recalling application (a) that since the Directorate of revenue Intelligence sealed the said loaded export container, the C. P. T. was bound to keep it within its area; and (b) that the writ petitioners never made any attempt to have the said container removed from the port area, and on the contrary acquiesced to the orders passed by the Directorate of Revenue intelligence. However, by an order dated 2nd april, 1998 the learned Judge was pleased to reject the said application for recalling. ( 12 ) FEELING aggrieved, on 25th August, 1998 the C. P. T. (with the other appellants)filed two appeals; the appeal against the impugned judgment and order dated 5th march, 1998 was registered as Appeal No. 531 of 1998, and the other, against the said order dated 2nd April 1998, was registered as Appeal No. 532 of 1998. By an order dated 25th August, 1998 both the said appeals were entertained; while rejecting the prayer for stay, it was made clear in the said order that the release of the container would abide by the result of the appeals. ( 13 ) BEFORE us, the learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the demurrage charges in question were lawfully and rightly levied by the C. P. T. , as (a) the loaded export container occupied the port area not for any action or inaction of the c. P. T. , and (b) as agent of the container empress Shipping was liable to pay such charges in terms of provisions of the scale of rates framed under Section 48 of the Major port Trusts Act, 1963. He has relied on the supreme Court decisions in the cases of The board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay v. Indian Goods Shipping Co. , AIR 1977 SC 1622 ; International Airports Authority of india v. Grand Slam International, (1995) 3 scc 151 : (1995 AIR SCW 1802); Trustees of Port of Madras v. Nagavedu Lungi and co. , (1995) 3 SCC 730 : (1995 AIR SCW 3235) and Om Shankar Biyani v. Board of trustees, Port of Calcutta, (2002) 3 SCC 168 : ( AIR 2002 SC 1217 ). , (1995) 3 SCC 730 : (1995 AIR SCW 3235) and Om Shankar Biyani v. Board of trustees, Port of Calcutta, (2002) 3 SCC 168 : ( AIR 2002 SC 1217 ). ( 14 ) ON the other hand, the learned counsel for the writ petitioners has argued that empress Shipping was in no way connected with the attempted export of the goods seized and detained by the authorities; therefore, in the absence of any transaction, regarding said attempted export, having taken place between the writ petitioners and the c. P. T. , the C. P. T. was not entitled and empowered, under the existing contract or otherwise, to debit the purported demurrage charges to the deposit account of Empress shipping. She has further argued that the c. P. T. had a lien only over the goods and not on the container; hence, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it was under a statutory obligation (a) to de-stuff the goods and release the container to Empress Shipping, and (b) to realize all its dues on account of demurrage charges only by selling the goods and/or from the owner of the goods. She has relied on the decisions in the cases of Board of Trustees of the Port of bombay v. Mr. Sriyansh Knitters, AIR 1983 bom 88 and Indian Trident Maritime (Pvt.) ltd. v. The Board of Trustees for the Port of calcutta, 1996 (II) Cal HN 118. ( 15 ) AFTER hearing the parties and considering the materials on record, with due respect, we are unable to agree with the basic finding of fact on the basis whereof the writ petition was allowed. The learned judge held that the C. P. T. did not allow the writ petitioners to remove the container. From the documents annexed to the writ petition we find that regarding the cargo loaded in the export container in question, empress Shipping was working as the agent. The learned judge held that the C. P. T. did not allow the writ petitioners to remove the container. From the documents annexed to the writ petition we find that regarding the cargo loaded in the export container in question, empress Shipping was working as the agent. Admittedly, for shipping the cargo stuffed into the said container, Empress Shipping, as the agent, had issued the required Mate's receipt, and on the seizure and detention of the cargo by the Directorate of Revenue intelligence, it cancelled the said Mate's receipt, and informed the C. P. T. that the required fresh Mate's Receipt for shipping the said cargo, loaded in the said export container, would be issued by It after getting clearance from the Preventive Officer of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence. While these facts appear from the letter dated 5th September 1995 (Annexure 'c' to the writ petition), written by Empress Shipping to the C. P. T. ; from its other letter dated 11th April, 1996 (Annexure 'd' to the writ petition), addressed to the Container Terminal manager of the C. P. T. , it appears that it expressed its inability to ship the cargo stuffed into the said container till clearance was received from the Preventive Officer of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence. In this letter it also mentioned that the said directorate had rejected its requests for release of its container after de-stuffing the cargo into a customs bonded warehouse. No material, however, was produced along with the writ petition to show that at any point of time the writ petitioners asked the C. P. T. to de-stuff the cargo and release the container to them. While the averment made in paragraph 6 of the writ petition that by their letter dated 11th April, 1996 they requested the Container Terminal Manager of the c. P. T. to allow release of the container was an incorrect and misleading averment; in paragraph 7 thereof only a bald, vague, and uncorroborated averment was made by the writ petitioners that they had, both orally and in writing, requested the officers of the directorate of Revenue Intelligence and the officers of the C. P. T. tp de-stuff the cargo into a bonded warehouse of the customs authorities, and to release the container, but in spite of such representations the said authorities did not take any steps to de-stuff the cargo or release the container. The contents of the said letters dated 5th September, 1995 and 11th April, 1996 Britten by empress Shipping show that the writ petitioners did not remove the container for two reasons: (1) they intended to have shipped the cargo stuffed in the container; and (2)they intended to have issued the fresh Mate's receipt for shipping of the loaded export container after getting clearance, by them, from the Preventive Officer of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence. who was not giving the clearance. On such a case appearing from the writ petition itself, in our considered view, even in the absence of any affidavit filed by the C. P. T. , in opposition to the writ petition, or even in the absence of submissions made by the C. P. T. to justify the levy of demurrage charges, there was no scope to record a finding of fact that the demurrage charges were levied by the C. P. T. for the period during which it did not allow removal of the container by the writ petitioners. As per their own admission, the directorate of Revenue Intelligence was not allowing the writ petitioners to remove the container. We find that the writ petitioners never approached the C. P. T. for de-stuffing or removal of the container. It will not be out of context to note here that such a claim made by the C. P. T. in its recalling application was not denied or disputed by the writ petitioners. This being the position, we are of the view that the abovenoted basic finding of fact recorded by the learned Judge is not correct. The whole foundation of the impugned judgment and order is the said finding of fact. Hence, the impugned judgment and order cannot be sustained on the sole ground that it is based on an incorrect foundational finding of fact. ( 16 ) WE are also unable to agree with the learned Judge that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Padam kumar Agarwalla ( AIR 1972 SC 542 ) (supra), the C. P. T. was required to pursue its remedy, if any, only against the Directorate of revenue Intelligence. ( 16 ) WE are also unable to agree with the learned Judge that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Padam kumar Agarwalla ( AIR 1972 SC 542 ) (supra), the C. P. T. was required to pursue its remedy, if any, only against the Directorate of revenue Intelligence. In that case the goods sought to be exported were seized by the customs authorities; the seized goods were kept in the custody of the Port Commissioners of Calcutta; the confiscation of the goods ordered by the adjudicating officer came to be challenged; and on such facts, the Supreme court, while quashing the order made by the adjudicating officer, declined to grant a writ of mandamus for delivery of the goods by the port authorities by saying as follows : "14. Now coming to the question of issuing a writ of mandamus directing the respondents or any of them to deliver possession of the seized dal, we would have found no difficulty in issuing the mandamus asked for if the seized goods had been in the possession of the customs authorities. But admittedly those goods are in the possession of the Port Commissioners. In law they have a lien over the goods for the rent and other charges due to them. Some-one has to pay those charges before taking possession of the goods. Consequently we cannot issue a writ of mandamus to the Port Commissioners to deliver the goods in question nor can we issue a writ to the other respondents to deliver possession of those goods as they are not in possession of the same. This is undoubtedly a hard case. The appellant has been unlawfully deprived of the possession of his valuable goods because of the illegal action of the customs authorities and thereby he could not fulfil the terms of his contract with the Cairo firm as a result of which he must have suffered considerable loss. In addition, he cannot now take possession of the goods which were seized from him without paying the charges due to the port Commissioners. We were given to understand that the charges due to the Port commissioners amount to more than the value of the goods themselves. In addition, he cannot now take possession of the goods which were seized from him without paying the charges due to the port Commissioners. We were given to understand that the charges due to the Port commissioners amount to more than the value of the goods themselves. It is only fair and just that the customs authorities who are responsible for this situation should bear the burden; but in this writ petition we cannot give any relief in that regard. We can only leave the matter to the good sense of the customs authorities to take the appropriate steps and avoid possible further litigation. " from the above, it is clear that in that case the Supreme Court did not lay down the law that the port authorities would loose their powers and rights to levy demurrage on cargo and/or container that remained in port area for wrongful seizure and detention by the customs authorities, or that the liability would shift to the person or authority at fault. ( 17 ) WE find that after considering the previous decisions, including that of the board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay ( AIR 1977 SC 1622 ) (supra), the legal position in this regard was explained by the Supreme court in the case of International Airports authority of India (1995 AIR SCW 1802) (supra); paragraph 32 of this decision reads as follows: "32. This Court in the cases aforementioned, therefore, held that the Board of trustees of a Port was, under the statute that created it, entitled to charge demurrage even in respect of periods during which the importer was unable to clear goods from its premises for no fault or negligence on his part. It was held that the Boards were entitled to charge demurrage even in respect of periods during which the importer was unable to clear goods because of the detention thereof by the Customs Authorities or the authorities under the Import Trade Control regulations, which detentions were thereafter found to be unjustified. This Court also recognized that the Boards were entities in their own right so that the Courts could not direct the Customs Authorities to issue a detention certificate without hearing the Board concerned. This was because the issuance of a detention certificate had the effect of reducing the amount of demurrage that the Board would otherwise have charged. This Court also recognized that the Boards were entities in their own right so that the Courts could not direct the Customs Authorities to issue a detention certificate without hearing the Board concerned. This was because the issuance of a detention certificate had the effect of reducing the amount of demurrage that the Board would otherwise have charged. " therefore, the existing legal position, at the relevant point of time was, and still is that even for the period during which the goods could not be shipped or removed due to wrongful seizure and detention by the customs authorities, the demurrage would be payable and such liability would create a lien of the port authorities, under Section 59 of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963, over the goods (which includes cargo and container both ). ( 18 ) IN our considered view, the reference to the consequences of the absence of a show cause notice under Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962. as made by the learned Judge, in the facts and circumstances of the case, cannot be said to be germane. The C. P. T. never detained the cargo or the container, hence if the seized goods stood released by operation of Sections 110 and 124 of the Customs Act, 1962, then nothing prevented the writ petitioners from either shipping the said loaded export container by issuing a fresh Mate's Receipt as they had promised to do, or from removing the loaded container from the port of the c. P. T. However, the fact remains that the show cause notice was duly issued. The concession, made by the Directorate before the learned Judge regarding the release of the container, has, also, no bearing on the question of payment of demurrage charges by empress Shipping to the C. P. T. As there was nothing from which it could be said that the c. P. T. in any manner refused to release the container, on the concession of the Directorate the writ petitioners were definitely at liberty to remove the same after paying the demurrage charges payable to the C. P. T. It is also not factually correct that in the show cause notice issued by the customs authorities there was no mention of the container in question, reference to the said container was made therein more than once. However, in our view, nothing turns on such facts, which were totally irrelevant for the purpose of examining the legality and validity of the action taken by the C. P. T. for levying demurrage charges on Empress Shipping. ( 19 ) NOW looking at the writ petition, we find that it was founded on a contention that empress Shipping being only the owner of the container could not be made liable to pay the demurrage charges, because the liability was of the owner of the goods; by goods, the writ petitioners wanted to mean only the cargo loaded in the container. Before us, the learned Advocate for the writ petitioners has further contended that regarding the attempted export and shipment there was no transaction between her clients and the C. P. T. ; hence under the terms of the contract between the parties or otherwise, the C. P. T. was not entitled to debit the disputed demurrage charges to the deposit account of Empress Shipping. She has relied on the decisions in the cases of Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay v. Mr. Sriyansh Knitters, AIR 1983 Bom 88 ; and india Trident Maritime (Pvt.) Ltd. v. The board of Trustees for the Port of Calcutta, 1996 (II) Cal HN 118. ( 20 ) IN terms of Section 48 of the Major port Trustees Act, 1963, the C. P. T. was entitled to demand payment of demurrage charges according to scale of rates framed thereunder. The word "demurrage" as defined in the duly framed scale of rates, means "charges payable for storage of cargo and container within port premises beyond free period as specified in the scale of rates. " In terms of provisions of the scale of rates (a) demurrage on cargo in containers shall be levied on the cargo owners or their agents; and (b) demurrage on containers (BOX only) in the case of loaded import or empty containers and demurrage on loaded export containers (including cargo)shall be levied on the concerned Container agents/main Line Operator/slot Charterer (all the three understood by the same acronym 'mlo') and on consignee/consignor/ their C. and F. agent in case of shipper's own container. ( 21 ) WE find that in its letters dated 5th september, 1995 and 11th April 1996 Empress shipping described itself as agent. ( 21 ) WE find that in its letters dated 5th september, 1995 and 11th April 1996 Empress shipping described itself as agent. In said two letters it stated about its the then existing inability and future intention to ship the cargo stuffed in the said container. The container-bill-statement was sent by the c. P. T. to Empress Shipping showing that it was the "container agent" in respect of the loaded export container in question. The writ petitioners never said that Empress Shipping was not the agent of the said container. They never disputed the description given by the C. P. T. in the said container-bill-statement. From such admitted facts appearing from the writ petition itself there is no doubt that Empress Shipping was the "container agent" in respect of the said loaded export container. Therefore, we find that the basic contention in the writ petition and the contention now raised before us, both are factually incorrect. We have already seen that under the provisions of the duly framed scale of rates demurrage on loaded export containers (including cargo) is to be levied on the MLOs and a "container agent" is an MLO. Hence, the writ petitioners' liability to pay the demurrage charges as levied by the c. P. T. is simply inescapable. The question of their being not at fault is absolutely irrelevant in view of the legal position already noted by us. ( 22 ) THE question that fell for decision before the Division Bench of the Bombay high Court in the case of Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay ( AIR 1983 Bom 88 ) (supra) was: whether the Board under the major Port Trusts Act, 1963 had a general lien for its dues over the consignments imported by the importers. There, nothing was decided on the issue pertaining to the one involved in the case before us. We find no relevance of the said case for deciding the questions raised in the present appeal. ( 23 ) THE petitioners in the case of India trident Maritime, (1996) 2 Cal HN 118 (supra) were the agent of the owner and the owner of the containers wherein the seized and detained goods were loaded. We find no relevance of the said case for deciding the questions raised in the present appeal. ( 23 ) THE petitioners in the case of India trident Maritime, (1996) 2 Cal HN 118 (supra) were the agent of the owner and the owner of the containers wherein the seized and detained goods were loaded. There, the question which arose for decision was:-whether said petitioners could be allowed to remove the containers, upon de-stuffing the same, without payment of the demurrage charges to the C. P. T. ; it was held that said petitioners, being the owners of the containers only, did not come within the meaning of the word "owner" as defined in section 2 (o) of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 in relation to goods, for sale, custody, loading or unloading of such goods; hence the C. P. T. , that had lien only over the goods, and not over the containers, was not empowered and entitled to detain the containers and claim demurrage charges from the said owners of the containers. ( 24 ) WITH due respect, we are unable to agree with the view taken by the learned single judge in India Trident Maritime (Pvt.)ltd. (supra ). In our opinion, for deciding the liability for demurrage charges payable on containers, Section 2 (o) of the Major Port trusts Act, 1963 is neither relevant nor decisive. "goods", as defined in Section 2 (h) of this Act means every kind of movable property including livestock. The word "goods" appearing in the definition of the word "owner" cannot be read to exclude a container from its meaning. The word "goods" used in said Section 2 (o) does not refer to and mean only the cargo loaded in a container. A container, loaded or empty, is also covered by the word "goods" used in said section 2 (o ). Besides, it is not the said Section 2 (o) which deals with the subject of demurrage. Power to levy demurrage springs from Section 48 of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963. The rates and conditions for levying demurrage are those specified in the scale of rates. As we have already seen, demurrage can be levied on both cargo and containers, and when payable on containers it can be levied on the persons specified in the scale of rates. The rates and conditions for levying demurrage are those specified in the scale of rates. As we have already seen, demurrage can be levied on both cargo and containers, and when payable on containers it can be levied on the persons specified in the scale of rates. In view of Section 58 of the major Port Trusts Act, 1963, an owner of a container has no right to get his container released, if demurrage payable on it remains unpaid. Under Section 59 of this Act the board has a right to seize and detain a container if rates leviable in respect thereof are not paid; "its lien over the goods," means lien over both the cargo and container. We also note that the said case was decided without considering the provisions of the scale of rates framed under Section 48 of the Act. Hence, we hold that the decision of the learned single Judge in India Trident maritime, [1996 2 Calhn 118] (supra) does not lay down the correct proposition of law regarding the powers and entitlement of a board constituted under the Major Port trusts Act, 1963 to levy demurrage charges on containers. ( 25 ) FOR the aforesaid reasons we are of the considered view that the impugned judgment and order of the learned single Judge cannot be sustained. Accordingly we allow this appeal and set aside the impugned judgment and order. The writ petition is hereby dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs. ( 26 ) 26. ASHOK KUMAR MATHUR, CHIEF JUSTICE :- I agree.