Judgment ASHIM KUMAR BANERJEE, J. (1) THE appellant was a consignee of cargo containing asbestos regarded as hazardous materials as per international specification prevalent at the material times. The goods were unloaded from the ship and after obtaining necessary clearance from the customs the goods were kept within the port area for which the Port Trust was entitled to landing and removal charges. It is the case of the appellant that out of 200 metric tons cargo 100 metric tons were cleared after payment of charges levied upon them by the Port trust. When the balance 100 metric tons were attempted to be taken delivery of, the Port Trust contended that they short-levied the charges earlier and as such the appellant was charged higher sum not only for the balance 100 metric tons, but also for the differential amount of charges paid for other 100 metric tons, which had already been cleared two months before. The Port Trust also issued notice under section 56 of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963, however after filing of the writ petition. (2) THE appellants approached the learned single Judge by filing the writ petition on the ground that it was obligatory on the part of the Port trust authorities to put the consignee on notice the appropriate rate at which they would have to pay the landing and removal charges. If there was any short-levy, only the Board was entitled to initiate proceeding and that too in terms of the provisions of section 56 of the said Act. No such notice was issued before filing of the writ petition. Even notice issued after filing of the writ petition, was by the official not authorized for the said purpose. The Port Trust authority filed affidavit-in-opposition where they admitted their mistake. They contended that through inadvertence lesser amount was charged. Cargo contained asbestos which was hazardous as per international specification. The official inadvertently treated the said cargo as non hazardous cargo and as such lesser amount was charged. (3) BEFORE the learned single Judge for the first time international specification was produced wherein the contention of the Port Trust was found to be correct. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellants before the learned single Judge also admitted that asbestos was to be charged as hazardous cargo. (3) BEFORE the learned single Judge for the first time international specification was produced wherein the contention of the Port Trust was found to be correct. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellants before the learned single Judge also admitted that asbestos was to be charged as hazardous cargo. He however, contended before His Lordship that in absence of proper publication of the schedule of rates the Port trust Authority was not entitled to charge at the higher rate. The learned single Judge negated such contention, in our view, very rightly. His Lordship dismissed the writ petition. Hence, this appeal. (4) MR. Mitra, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants has contended as follows: I) Under section 52 of the Major Port Trusts Act prior to its amendment it was obligatory on the part of the Port Trust to make necessary publication of the schedule of rates and those were to be notified in conspicuous places within the port area so that the consignee could know at what rate they would have to pay the landing and removal charges. Since no such publication was made, the Port Trust was not entitled to claim double the rate prescribed for the said goods. II) Assuming the Port Trust was entitled to recover the amount, the Board was the appropriate authority to initiate proceeding and that too in terms of the provisions of section 56 of the said act. Hence, demand notices issued by the Port Trust and impugned in the writ petition, were wholly without jurisdiction having been issued by the person not authorized for the said purpose. III) Assuming the Port Trust was entitled to charge the cargo as hazardous one, without making any appropriate provision for storing hazardous goods the Post Trust was not entitled to charge at such rate when no special care or caution was taken as required for the hazardous cargo. IV) The rate was not known to the appellants. The same was also not made known contemporaneously. Had it been made known to the appellants, they could have removed the goods earlier. Because of the mistake committed by the Port Trust the appellants should not be foisted with additional liability. (5) IN support of his contention Mr. Mitra has relied upon a single bench decision of this Court in the case of Calcutta Shipping Bureau and ors. Had it been made known to the appellants, they could have removed the goods earlier. Because of the mistake committed by the Port Trust the appellants should not be foisted with additional liability. (5) IN support of his contention Mr. Mitra has relied upon a single bench decision of this Court in the case of Calcutta Shipping Bureau and ors. v. Calcutta Port Trust and Ors., reported in AIR 1986 Calcutta 288 as well as unreported decision of a single Bench of this Court in the case of M/s. Konark Cement and Asbestos Ltd. and Anr. v. The Board of Trustees for the Port of Calcutta and Ors. appearing at page 63 of the paper book. (6) MR. Nilay Sengupta, learned Counsel appearing for the Port Trust while opposing the appeal has contended that once the Port Trust by mistake short-levied the charges, they were entitled to invoke section 56 of the said Act which was done in the instant case. He also contends that the appellants being commercial people were supposed to be aware of the international specification, specially when they were importing the goods from abroad. Hence, the Port Trust was entitled to claim the differential amount for 100 metric tons which had already been delivered as well as double the amount for the balance, part of the consignment, which was subsequently cleared pursuant to the order of the learned single Judge. (7) AS we have observed earlier, the learned single Judge was absolutely right in rejecting the sole contention of the appellants raised before His Lordship to the effect that under section 52 of the pre-amended Act the schedule of rates was to be published, so that it could be made known to the concerned parties. It was nobodys case that the said schedule was not published. It was nobodys case that the Port Trust did not adhere to the said schedule of rates while charging the appellants. For the particular item a particular rate was prescribed and the Port Trust charged at the said rate. It was also specified that for hazardous articles double the rate prescribed in the schedule would be charged. It is true by mistake Port Trust treated the consignment as non-hazardous one while allowing the appellants to clear 100 metric tons. For the particular item a particular rate was prescribed and the Port Trust charged at the said rate. It was also specified that for hazardous articles double the rate prescribed in the schedule would be charged. It is true by mistake Port Trust treated the consignment as non-hazardous one while allowing the appellants to clear 100 metric tons. However, for the balance 100 metric tons they accordingly charged on the basis of international specification which was not in dispute at any point of time and the appellants were obliged to pay at the said rate for the balance 100 metric tons. (8) WE however, find some logic in the argument of the appellants raised for the first time before us with regard to loss suffered by them because of the mistake committed by the Port Trust. (9) IT is true that the appellants should have been made aware of themselves about international specification. At the same time the Port trust should also make themselves aware contemporaneously so that no mistake could be committed on that score. The Port Trust committed their mistake remaining ignorant about the said specification. The appellants took advantage of it knowingly or unknowingly. Hence, for the first 100 metric tons the Port Trust should follow the mandate of the statute as contained in section 56 of the said Act of 1963. Admittedly, no proper notice was served before the bill for the differential amount was raised. The show cause notice was issued after filing of the writ petition and that too by the financial advisor whose authority was doubted by the learned single Judge in the case of Calcutta Shipping bureau (supra). (10) THIS is an event of 1984. Twenty-four years have passed thereafter. The goods were cleared long before. The appellants initially furnished a bank guarantee which was later on invoked by the Port trust. The appellants also paid the balance amount as per direction of the learned single Judge. The learned Division Bench made it without prejudice to their rights and contentions. In this backdrop, if we ask the Port Trust to start de novo proceeding for the first 100 metric tons under section 56 of the said Act of 1963, it would not be proper. The learned Division Bench made it without prejudice to their rights and contentions. In this backdrop, if we ask the Port Trust to start de novo proceeding for the first 100 metric tons under section 56 of the said Act of 1963, it would not be proper. (11) HENCE, applying the thumb rule we feel that interest of justice would sub-serve if the appellants are made liable for the differential amount so Charged for the first 100 metric tons to the extent of 50%. We order accordingly. (12) THE appellants would be entitled to make necessary application for refund if any, available to them in terms of the order of this Court passed herein. (13) THE order of the learned single Judge is modified accordingly. The appeal is disposed of without any order as to costs.