JUDGMENT K.S. JHAVERI, J. 1. This Letters Patent Appeal is filed against the order dated 30.07.2009 passed by the learned single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 1227 of 2009. 2. Mr. D.C. Dave, learned senior advocate appearing with Mr. P.A. Jadeja for the appellant, original petitioner, submitted that the appellant had applied to the respondent Port for availing its storage facility on rental basis. In pursuance thereof, the appellant was allocated Warehouse bearing No. 8 on storage facility on rental basis for a period of one month starting from 10.04.2008, which is evident from the pay in slip dated 11.04.2008 issued by the respondent Port, copy of which is annexed vide Annexure-A to the writ petition). Thereafter, on an application dated 12.05.2008 made by the appellant seeking extension of the storage facility, the rental period was extended by another one month with effect from 10.05.2008 and which was to end on 09.06.2005. This fact is apparent from the “Application for extension of storage area on rental terms” filed by the appellant, copy of which is annexed vide Annexure-I to the Additional Affidavit filed by the original petitioner, appellant herein, in the writ petition. 3. On the said application dated 12.05.2008, an endorsement was made that “as per programme fertilizer cargo is expected to arrive and castor meal cargo vessel will arrive late, hence, if approved, extension may be given for one month on rental account.” 4. It is the case of the appellant that before expiry of the extended period starting from 10.05.2008, the respondent Port requested the appellant to vacate the Warehouse No. 8 on the ground that the same was required for storage of another cargo imported by the Government of India and in lieu thereof, the appellant was offered a “transit storage facility” bearing Warehouse No. 7. The appellant acceded to the aforesaid request and shifted its cargo to Warehouse No. 7 on 28.05.2008. The said fact is evident from the Storage Permission slip dated 28.05.2008, which is produced vide Annexure-II by the appellant along with the Additional Affidavit filed in the writ petition. 5. Learned senior advocate Mr. Dave submitted that the issue involved in the writ petition was referable to interpretation of Scale of Rates of the respondent Port and therefore, no question, which would qualify as disputed question of fact, had arisen for adjudication in the writ petition. 5. Learned senior advocate Mr. Dave submitted that the issue involved in the writ petition was referable to interpretation of Scale of Rates of the respondent Port and therefore, no question, which would qualify as disputed question of fact, had arisen for adjudication in the writ petition. Besides, the issue as to whether the concerned Warehouse was on “transit basis” or on “rental basis” was not at all in the realm of controversy by and between the appellant and the respondents. Therefore, even on this count also, the learned single Judge erred in holding against the appellant. It was, therefore, submitted that the learned single Judge seriously erred in rejecting the writ petition on the ground that it gives rise to disputed questions of fact. 6. Learned senior counsel Mr. Dave has drawn our attention to the Scale of Rates of the respondent Port, more particularly, to Chapter-III therein relating to “Cargo Relation Charges.” Clause-2 of the said Chapter relates to “Schedule of Demurrage Charges.” Subclause-2.1 pertains to “Free Period” and at Sr. No. 3 therein, it has been provided that the free period for export cargo stuffed into containers shall be fifteen (15) days. The appellant was, therefore, entitled to have free usage of the said transit storage facility in the form of Warehouse No. 7 for a period of 15 days with effect from 28.05.2008. However, the case of the appellant was not accepted and it was served with three sheets by the Office of respondent No. 2 demanding demurrage in respect of Warehouse No. 7 amounting in all to Rs. 16,76,049.00 for the period from 28.05.2008 till the actual shipment of the cargo. Being aggrieved by the same, the captioned writ petition was preferred. 7. Mr. Dhaval Vyas, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, submitted, that initially, the appellant was granted permission to store the cargo in the storage facility of the respondent Port for a period of one month commencing from 10.04.2008 and ending on 09.05.2008. From the date of expiry of the permitted date of storage, the cargo continues to be in unauthorized possession of prominent storage area of the port premises, for which the party concerned is liable to pay penalty and face serious action. The appellant did not take any steps for three days and only on 12.05.2008, it made an application seeking extension of the storage period. The appellant did not take any steps for three days and only on 12.05.2008, it made an application seeking extension of the storage period. It is submitted by Mr. Vyas that along with the application, a specific undertaking was called for and given by the appellant to the effect that “we will not do more storage in above godown and storage of the cargo will be shipped on vessel expected to berth on 22.05.2008. No further storage in this godown.” It was on the aforesaid undertaking that the appellant was granted limited permission for storage of the cargo in Warehouse No. 7. The above facts were well within the knowledge of the appellant, who had, in turn, requested to permit shifting of the cargo from Warehouse No. 8 to alternate Warehouse. It is submitted that the appellants had themselves chosen to shift the cargo and store it on “transit terms” and requested for permission to store the cargo in Warehouse No. 7, which is a part of the transit area. It was, therefore, submitted that the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. 8. We have heard learned counsel for both the sides and perused the record. It appears from the record that the appellant had sought extension of “storage area on rental basis” vide application dated 12.05.2008. On the basis of the said application, the rental period was extended by another one month beginning from 10.05.2008 and ending on 09.06.2005. On the said application, the Asst. Traffic Manager of the respondent Port made an endorsement on 15.05.2008 requiring the appellant to vacate the concerned Warehouse bearing No. 8 latest by 22.05.2008, which was approved by the Dy. Traffic Manager. Accordingly, on 15.05.2008, the appellant was asked to give an undertaking that the cargo will be shipped on the vessel expected to berth on 22.05.2008 and that it will not seek further time for storage of the cargo in the Warehouse concerned. 9. It appears that since the earlier period of “storage facility on rental basis” had expired on 09.05.2008 and the appellant had made the application seeking extension only on 12.05.2008, which was granted with effect from 10.05.2008, the appellant agreed to submit the undertaking, referred to herein above, on 15.05.2008. But, the fact remains that, originally, the appellant had been granted extension of storage facility on rental basis up to 09.06.2005 and not 22.05.2005. But, the fact remains that, originally, the appellant had been granted extension of storage facility on rental basis up to 09.06.2005 and not 22.05.2005. Subsequently, on 28.05.2005, the appellant was made to move its cargo to Warehouse No. 7 from Warehouse No. 8 on “transit terms” which is evident from the “storage permission” receipt issued by the respondent Port dated 28.05.2005. From the said document titled “storage permission”, it is evident that the appellant had moved its cargo to Warehouse No. 7 on “transit terms” and not on “rental terms.” 10. At this juncture, it would be relevant to refer to the provisions regarding “demurrage charges” as laid down in the Scale of Rates of the respondent Port. It has been provided that “demurrage charges” shall be levied on all goods left in the Port’s transit sheds and yards beyond the free days, including Sundays and Holidays. Clause2.1 of the said Rates provide that in case of export cargo stuffed into containers, the free period shall be 15 days. It is not in dispute that the cargo belonging to the appellant was for the purpose of export. Therefore, on a conjoint reading of both the above clauses, it can be safely said that the appellant was entitled to store its cargo for the purpose of export free of cost for a period of fifteen (15) days starting from the date when the cargo was shifted on “transit terms” i.e. with effect from 28.05.2014. In view of the above, the impugned action of the respondents demanding demurrage charges from the appellant is contrary to its own Scale of Rates and therefore, it deserves to be quashed and set aside. 11. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is allowed. The impugned communication dated 30.01.2009 is quashed and set aside and it is held that the appellant is entitled to store its cargo at Warehouse No. 7 for the purpose of export free of cost for a period of fifteen (15) days starting from the date when the cargo was shifted on “transit terms” i.e. with effect from 28.05.2014. The amount deposited by the appellant and withdrawn by the respondent Port in pursuance of the order dated 21.06.2012 passed by this Court is ordered to be refunded within a period of Three Weeks from today. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.