Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 419 (CAL)

Rashmi Metaliks Limited v. Union of India

2017-04-25

BISWANATH SOMADDER, SANKAR ACHARYYA

body2017
JUDGMENT : Biswanath Somadder, J. Let the affidavit of service filed in Court today on behalf of the appellant be taken on record. 2. By consent of the parties, the appeal is treated as on day's list and taken up for consideration along with the application for stay. 3. The appeal arises out of a judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge on 10th March, 2017, in WP 11827(W) of 2013 (Rashmi Metaliks Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors.). 4. By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Single Judge was pleased to dispose of the writ petition with the following observations and directions:- ".......................................................... Considering the above submission, I am of the opinion, that the bills raised by the Port Authority should be treated as demand notices. The petitioner should be given an opportunity of hearing and their sole objection regarding the period of unauthorised use considered and disposed of by the respondent authority within six weeks of communication of this order. As this writ is being disposed of, the Register (sic; read, Registrar) General shall encash the term deposit and make over the sum of Rs. 3,18,00,000/- along with all accrued interest to the Kolkata Port Trust after deducting costs, charges, if any, by 31st March, 2017. This shall be accompanied with a statement of accounts. A copy of the same may be handed over to the parties also. The Kolkata Port Trust will hold this amount and make appropriation therefrom in respect of its occupation charges after due determination thereof. If, upon making this appropriation, there is any balance the same may be refunded to the petitioner. This writ application is, accordingly, disposed of." 5. The appellant before us was the writ petitioner. 6. In an Intra-Court Mandamus Appeal no interference is usually warranted unless palpable infirmities or perversities are noticed. In the facts of the instant case, it is noticed that the First Court took into consideration the case of the writ petitioner as well as the stand of the Port Trust authorities, which was clearly stated in its affidavit-in-opposition. In the light of the respective facts as pleaded and submitted, the learned Single Judge made observations and passed such directions as quoted above. In such circumstances, we are of the view that no interference is warranted in respect of the impugned judgment and order. In the light of the respective facts as pleaded and submitted, the learned Single Judge made observations and passed such directions as quoted above. In such circumstances, we are of the view that no interference is warranted in respect of the impugned judgment and order. However, so far as the direction upon the Registrar General to encash the term deposit and make over the total amount payable to the Kolkata Port Trust after deducting costs, charges after 31st March, 2017, is concerned, we wish to observe that the total amount, upon being received by the Kolkata Port Trust authorities, shall be kept deposited in any short-term renewable fixed deposit in any nationalised bank, till such time the direction given by the learned Single Judge with regard to hearing of the objection of the petitioner regarding the period of unauthorised use and other objections, if any, are considered and disposed of by the Port Trust authorities. 7. Since there has been a gap of five weeks from the date of passing of the order by the learned Single Judge and this order, we extend the time for disposing of the objection of the writ petitioner by the Port Trust authorities for a further period of six weeks from the date of communication of a photostat certified copy of this order. 8. The appeal and the application for stay stand disposed of accordingly. Sankar Acharyya, J. - I agree.