Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 56 (CAL)

TIL Limited v. Union of India

2019-01-11

AMRITA SINHA

body2019
JUDGMENT : AMRITA SINHA, J. 1. The petitioners have filed the instant writ petition praying for setting aside the order dated 29th March, 2017 passed by the Tariff Authority of Major Ports (TAMP for short) whereby the schedule of rates (SoR for short) proposed by the Kolkata Port Trust (KoPT for short) have been approved. The petitioners have also made a prayer for injunction restraining the respondents from giving any effect and/or further effect to the impugned SoR. 2. The petitioner no. 1 is a company within the meaning of the Companies Act. It is engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling of material handling and port handling equipments. The petitioner no. 2 is its Managing Director. The petitioner no. 1 is in possession of two separate plots of land of KoPT within the Kolkata Dock System in belts 1 and 2. The said plots of land were leased out by KoPT in favour of the petitioner no. 1 by two separate lease deeds. The petitioner no. 1 is in possession of the said plots for more than fifty/sixty years. A factory is in operation on the said plots directly employing approximately thousand persons and several daily wage earners. The lease deeds were executed last on 10th July, 2001 with effect from 1st. August 2000 and on 27th January, 2004 with effect from 1st. April 2000. Both the lease deeds were valid for a period of 15 years. The petitioners vide their letter dated 4th August, 2014 requested the KoPT for renewal of the lease as well as license in their favour. 3. To regulate the allotment of land the Ministry of Shipping issued guidelines from time to time as per the provisions contained in Section 34(1) of the Major Port Trust Act, 1963. The Policy Guidelines for land management by Major Ports 2014 is presently in operation. One of the objectives of the said Policy Guidelines is to ensure that optimum value is realised by licensing/leasing port land through a transparent tender-cum-auction methodology. 4. Ld. Advocate for the petitioners submit that paragraph 9 of the Policy Guidelines 2014 mention that the ports are empowered to lease/license land based on the approved land use plan/zoning of the port within the framework of MPT Act. 4. Ld. Advocate for the petitioners submit that paragraph 9 of the Policy Guidelines 2014 mention that the ports are empowered to lease/license land based on the approved land use plan/zoning of the port within the framework of MPT Act. Paragraph 10.2 of the said Guidelines deals with renewal of existing land leases wherein it mentions that the procedure outlined in paragraph 11.3 will be adopted for renewal of lease of land inside the custom area. 5. As per paragraph 11(e) a Land Allotment Committee shall be constituted by the Port Trust Board consisting of the Deputy Chairman of the Board and heads of the Department of Finance, Estate and Traffic. The Land Allotment Committee will finalise the reserve price as per the methodology explained in paragraph 13(b). 6. As per paragraph 11.3(c) in case of renewal of existing leases without renewal option at the end of the lease term the land will be put to tender-cum-auction with the first right of refusal to be extended to the existing lessees. The existing lessee should be allowed to match the highest bid. If the only bidder is the existing lessee the annual lease renewal would be determined on the basis of the latest SoR notified as per paragraph 13(c) or the price quoted by the existing lessee in the tender-cum-auction whichever is higher. The provision of first right will also apply to expired lease. 7. Paragraph 13 of the said Guidelines mention the factors to be taken into account for fixing up the market value of the land and SoR. Paragraph 13(b) mentions that the Land Allotment Committee shall while recommending the latest market value for any land would normally take into account the highest of the factors mentioned in paragraph 13(a). Reserve price in terms of the annual lease rent would be latest SoR determined in accordance with the paragraph 13(a) and 13(c) and would in no case be less than 6% of the latest market value recommended by the Port Trust. 8. Paragraph 13(c) mentions that the Port Trust would make a proposal as outlined in paragraph 13(a) to TAMP for fixing the latest SoR of the land. TAMP would notify the latest SoR of the land after following due process of consultation with stakeholders within forty five days of receipt of the proposal. 8. Paragraph 13(c) mentions that the Port Trust would make a proposal as outlined in paragraph 13(a) to TAMP for fixing the latest SoR of the land. TAMP would notify the latest SoR of the land after following due process of consultation with stakeholders within forty five days of receipt of the proposal. The Port Trust Board will fix a rate of annual escalation which would not be less than 2%. SoR would be re-fixed once in every five years by TAMP. 9. The SoR for the year 2011 fell due for re-fixation in 2016. As the fixation of SoR is made through a consultative procedure a copy of the KoPT proposal for revision of SoR was forwarded to the concerned users in 2016 seeking their comments. On perusal of the proposal forwarded by KoPT some of the users/user organisation furnished their comments to TAMP who in turn forwarded the same to KoPT as feedback information and thereafter KoPT again responded to the feedback. A joint hearing was held on 24th November, 2016 at the KoPT premises in Kolkata. After consideration of the proposal along with the comments SoR has been fixed for the year 2016. 10. Kopt issued a notice inviting tender in respect of the plots of land including that of the petitioner. The said tender was ultimately cancelled. Thereafter KoPT published a second tender wherein the SoR had been fixed arbitrarily. The petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court assailing the cancellation of tender and arbitrary fixation of SoR by filing writ petition being WP No-5820 (w) of 2017. At the time of hearing of the said writ KoPT submitted before the Court that they were expecting a revision of SoR by TAMP very shortly. KoPT submitted that the tender in respect of the petitioner would be kept in abeyance till the fixation of SoR by TAMP. In view of the aforesaid submissions the learned Court disposed of the said writ petition on 3rd March, 2017. 11. On 9th March, 2017 the petitioners made a representation before the Director, TAMP raising objection with regards to the fixation of SoR. In the said representation the petitioners highlighted the percentage of increase of SoR for the year 2016 apropos the year 2011. On 20th March, 2017 the petitioners made a further representation before TAMP objecting the enhancement of SoR. On 9th March, 2017 the petitioners made a representation before the Director, TAMP raising objection with regards to the fixation of SoR. In the said representation the petitioners highlighted the percentage of increase of SoR for the year 2016 apropos the year 2011. On 20th March, 2017 the petitioners made a further representation before TAMP objecting the enhancement of SoR. TAMP passed an order on 29th March, 2017 upon consideration of the objection made by the petitioners. 12. It was communicated that the authorities proceeded with retendering of ten plots including the plots occupied by the petitioners. It further mentioned that the rate has been fixed in conformity with the methodology prescribed in the land Policy Guidelines and is supported by detailed analysis. This order of TAMP dated 29th March, 2017 is under challenge in the present writ petition. 13. The petitioners submit that the said order has been passed without giving them an opportunity of hearing and without forwarding the proposal as well as the report of the Land Allotment Committee to the petitioners. Without perusing the report of the Land Allotment Committee and the proposal that has been forwarded by KoPT to TAMP it was not possible for the petitioners to raise a proper dispute. They were also not aware of the rates that were proposed to be fixed by KoPT. 14. Violation of the principles of natural justice is one of the grounds for filing the instant writ petition. The learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners pray for setting aside the SoR in respect of the petitioners with further prayer for forwarding all the relevant documents included in the proposal sent by KoPT to TAMP. He submits that as the SoR is fixed by TAMP upon a consultative process held between the port user, TAMP and the Port Trust accordingly the fixation of SoR in respect of the land of the petitioners without forwarding the proposal and affording opportunity of hearing to them is contrary to the principles of natural justice. 15. The learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners rely upon the various decisions delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the principles of natural justice. State of Orissa vs. Dr. Ms. Binapani Dei & Ors., AIR 1967 SC 1269 wherein the Court held that even an administrative order which involves civil consequences must be made consistently with the rules of natural justice. Rajesh Kumar & Ors. State of Orissa vs. Dr. Ms. Binapani Dei & Ors., AIR 1967 SC 1269 wherein the Court held that even an administrative order which involves civil consequences must be made consistently with the rules of natural justice. Rajesh Kumar & Ors. vs. Dy. CIT & Ors., (2007) 2 SCC 181 wherein the Supreme Court held that when civil consequences ensue there is hardly any distinction between an administrative order and a quasi judicial order. The thin line of difference between an administrative order and quasi judicial order stands obliterated. Union of India & Ors. vs. Mohd. Ramzan Khan, (1991) 1 SCC 588 to drive at the point that denial of the opportunity of hearing amounts to violation of the principles of natural justice. State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Satrughan Lal & Anr., (1998) 6 SCC 651 on the proposition that non supply of relevant document amounts to depriving the opportunity of effective hearing. State Bank of India & Ors. D.C. Aggarwal & Anr, (1993) 1 SCC 13 on the point of procedural fairness in giving opportunity of hearing prior to taking a decision in a case. 16. The learned Advocate appearing for the Kolkata Port Trust submits that the petitioners do not have any legal right to raise any grievance in respect of the land in question as he is an unauthorised occupant. The lease granted in favour of the petitioner expired long back. Huge amount of money on account of rent is lying due and payable by the petitioners. The petitioners do not have any right to stay in the land in question. Being an unauthorised occupant the petitioners do not have any locus standi to move the writ petition. The petitioners are liable to be evicted from the said premises in accordance with the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. 17. He submits that all the guidelines of TAMP have been followed at the time of fixation of SoR. The process of fixation of SoR continued for quite some time and the documents annexed to the writ petition suggest that the petitioners were aware of all the proceedings and the details relating to fixation of SoR. All the objections that have been raised by the petitioners in its representation were duly considered and necessary order has been passed therein. 18. All the objections that have been raised by the petitioners in its representation were duly considered and necessary order has been passed therein. 18. It has been submitted that the instant writ petition is liable to be dismissed as the petitioners participated in the auction for obtaining lease of the said plots by accepting the terms and conditions of the auction process. 19. The learned Advocate relies upon the decision delivered in the case of Union of India & Anr. Vs. Cynamide India Ltd. & Anr, 1987 AIR SC 1802. In the said case the Supreme Court was dealing with the scope of judicial review in price fixation of an article or goods. The Court observed that price fixation is neither the function nor the forte of the Court. The Court will not re-evaluate the considerations even if the prices are demonstrably injurious to some manufacturers or producers. The Court further observes that legislative action is not subject to rules of natural justice. Where the legislature has not chosen to provide for a notice or hearing no one can insist upon it and it will not be permissible to read natural justice into such legislative activity. At the time of deciding the said case the Court also took note of the judgment passed in the case of Shri Meenakshi Mills Ltd. vs. Union of India, (1974) 1 SCC 468 wherein it was held that price fixation was in the nature of legislative measure and could not give rise to a complaint that natural justice was not observed. 20. The learned Advocate further refers to the decision delivered in the case of Rajasthan Housing Board vs. New Pink City Nirman Sahakari Samity Ltd. & Anr., (2015) 7 SCC 601 wherein the Court observed that constructive notice in legal fiction signifies that the individual person should know as a reasonable person would have. Even if they have no actual knowledge of it. Constructive notice means a man ought to have known a fact. A person is said to have notice of a fact when he actually knows a fact but for wilful abstention from inquiry or search which he ought to have made, or gross negligence he would have known it. 21. The learned Advocate submits that they have no obligation to forward the proposal of SoR to non-stakeholders. A person is said to have notice of a fact when he actually knows a fact but for wilful abstention from inquiry or search which he ought to have made, or gross negligence he would have known it. 21. The learned Advocate submits that they have no obligation to forward the proposal of SoR to non-stakeholders. The list of stakeholders maintained by KoPT does not contain the name of the petitioners as the petitioner No-1 is a defaulter in payment of the lease rent. The petitioner No-1 is not legally entitled to get a copy of SoR proposal. Had the name of the petitioners been included in the approved list of port users/stakeholders of the land maintained by KoPT then the petitioners would have certainly been given an opportunity of hearing prior to fixation of SoR. Moreover, the fact that the petitioners did not challenge the list of stakeholders published by KoPT indicates that the petitioners were not aggrieved with the deletion of their name from the list of stakeholders. 22. The petitioners being aware of their status as non-stakeholder participated in the auction process. It has been pointed out that the petitioners have not come up with any valid ground and/or reason to challenge the SoR that has been fixed. The SoR is reasonable and none other than the petitioners challenged the same. 23. Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of TAMP submits that the proposal for fixing the Schedule of Rates was available with the petitioners and the same will appear from the written representation and objection raised by the petitioners before the Director, TAMP on 9th March, 2017. He submits that the petitioner mentioned in details the rates which were prevailing in the year 2011 and the comparative chart showing the percentage of increase of SoR in the year 2016. The petitioners in the said representation sought an opportunity to appear before the authority to canvas the illegal hike in proposed SoR in comparison to the existing SoR of the year 2011. He submits that the objection of the petitioners were duly taken into consideration at the time of finalising the SoR and argues that a personal hearing is not required to be given at the time of fixation of SoR. 24. The Ld. Advocate relies on the decision delivered in the case of Madhya Pradesh Industries Ltd. Vs. He submits that the objection of the petitioners were duly taken into consideration at the time of finalising the SoR and argues that a personal hearing is not required to be given at the time of fixation of SoR. 24. The Ld. Advocate relies on the decision delivered in the case of Madhya Pradesh Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors., AIR 1966 SC 671 . He submits that the three-judge bench in the aforesaid case opined that a quasi-judicial tribunal cannot make any decision adverse to a party without giving him an effective opportunity of meeting any relevant allegations against him. The said opportunity need not necessarily be by personal hearing, it can be by written representation. In the instant case the representation and objection made by the petitioners was taken into consideration by the authorities at the time of fixation of SoR, hence the provisions of following the principles of natural justice have been duly complied with prior to publication of the final SoR. 25. He further submits that the authorities passed a detailed order giving all the reasons for arriving at the final rates and there is no reason for reconsideration of the same. He highlights that the rates have been fixed in accordance with the parameters laid down in the 2014 Guidelines by taking into consideration all the relevant factors. All the other occupants/users are paying the enhanced rate without any demur. 26. Tamp reiterated the submissions made on behalf of KoPT that the objection raised by the petitioners was duly considered at the time of fixation of rates and there was no need of giving any personal hearing to the petitioners. There are several lease and license in respect of the lands let out by the Port Trust and under the existing land Policy Guidelines it is not necessary that each and every allottee of port land has to be given individual personal hearing. The same is not practically possible. For the purpose of maintaining transparency and to conform to the consultative process at the time of fixation of SoR the proposal was circulated amongst the users/user organisation, a list of which has been annexed with the affidavit in opposition. The same was also put up in the official website. The same is not practically possible. For the purpose of maintaining transparency and to conform to the consultative process at the time of fixation of SoR the proposal was circulated amongst the users/user organisation, a list of which has been annexed with the affidavit in opposition. The same was also put up in the official website. Users in respect of the same belt as that of the petitioners were duly heard and all objections including those raised by the petitioners were taken into consideration at the time of fixation of SoR. 27. The consultation process continued from November, 2016 till 29th March, 2017. All the port users were duly notified and they participated in the said consultation process and after consideration of the respective submissions of all the parties in the joint hearing following land Policy Guidelines the SoR was fixed and published. The objection raised by "Kolkata Port Zone Establishment Welfare Association" who is not even included in the list of port users was considered and the said organisation was allowed to participate in the joint hearing held at Kolkata. Though the consultation process continued for a pretty long time the petitioners approached TAMP at a very late stage but even then the authorities duly considered their objections prior to finalisation of SoR. The principles of natural justice have been duly complied with. 28. It has been submitted that the valuation report of the Land Allotment Committee formed a part of the proposal of KoPT and the same was forwarded to all the users/user organisations as part of the consultation process followed by TAMP. Valuation of the port land is a prerequisite for determination of the rate of rent as per the land Policy Guidelines of the Government. The Land Allotment Committee determines the latest market value of the land. The same is within the domain of KoPT and not in the purview of TAMP. Adjudication of objections regarding revision of the valuation methodology adopted by KoPT does not fall within the jurisdiction of TAMP. In fact TAMP advised KoPT to have a relook on the various objections of the users and if necessary file a revised proposal. 29. In reply to the submissions made by the respondents the learned Advocate for the petitioner asserts that the petitioner No. 1 is a lessee in respect of the port land and surely a stakeholder. In fact TAMP advised KoPT to have a relook on the various objections of the users and if necessary file a revised proposal. 29. In reply to the submissions made by the respondents the learned Advocate for the petitioner asserts that the petitioner No. 1 is a lessee in respect of the port land and surely a stakeholder. The lease of the petitioners expired due to efflux of time. As per the land Policy Guidelines the first right of refusal is with the existing lessee. The learned Advocate strenuously submits that fixation of rates being a consultative process the documents relating to the said fixation ought to have been forwarded to the petitioners. In the absence of the valuation report prepared by the Land Allotment Committee the petitioners were not in a position to raise their objection in a proper and effective manner. Without knowing the basis of valuation of the land in question it was not possible for the petitioners to object to the same. He submits that the details of the proposal including the valuation report ought to have been made available to the petitioners for allowing them for raising a constructive objection. The authorities in their opposition have admitted that the principles of natural justice and the consultative process are mandated in the land Policy Guidelines. Since the petitioners are not members of any organisation accordingly they ought to have been given a separate personal hearing prior to fixation of SoR. He submits that there has been hostile discrimination at the time of giving hearing to the port users/stakeholders. From the affidavit filed by the respondents it is distinctly clear that the petitioners were not heard as their names were not included in the list of stakeholders/port users maintained by KOPT. In view of the said admitted assertion made by the respondents the entire decision-making process runs contrary to the principles of natural justice and accordingly the rates fixed is liable to be set aside. 30. After hearing the submissions made on behalf of all the parties and upon perusal of the materials on record it appears that the petitioners are in occupation of two plots of land belonging to KoPT, by virtue of lease granted in their favour. The lease was lastly renewed by two indentures dated 10th July, 2001 effective from 1st August, 2000 and 27th January, 2004 effective from 1st April, 2000. The lease was lastly renewed by two indentures dated 10th July, 2001 effective from 1st August, 2000 and 27th January, 2004 effective from 1st April, 2000. Both the leases were valid for a period of 15 years. Prior to expiry of the lease the petitioners vide their letter dated 4th August, 2014 requested KoPT for renewal of the lease as well as license in their favour. In the said letter it was mentioned that they were bona fide lessees/licensees for more than six decades and are in occupation of the said plots by setting up their office and factory cum workshop on the said premises. They also prayed for an opportunity to discuss and finalise the renewal proposal well before the expiry of the existing term of lease/license. The said letter was sent to KoPT by speed post on 4th August, 2014 and KoPT do not deny the receipt of the said letter. No document has been put forward by either of the parties to show that the said letter was responded by KoPT. That being the position it can be assumed that the petitioners were interested in renewal of the lease in respect of the plots in question. 31. The SoR in respect of the lands in question was last revised on and from 7th April, 2011 and the said rate was valid for a period of five years i.e. till 6th April, 2016. Revision of the SoR was due from 7th April, 2016. In the instant case the lease of the petitioners expired in 2015. The petitioners duly applied for renewal of their existing lease in the year 2014. As per the Policy Guidelines grant of lease can be made by fresh tender-cum-auction i.e, without tender-cum-auction the lease of the petitioners could not have been extended. KoPT sent the proposal for revision of rates on 29th September, 2016 but the petitioners were not forwarded with a copy of the same because their name was not enlisted in the approved list of port users as its lease had expired in the meantime. 32. As per the Policy Guidelines a proposal was forwarded by the Port Trust to TAMP mentioning the details of the land in question for fixing the Schedule of Rates. After receiving the proposal TAMP initiated a process of consultation with stakeholders. 33. 32. As per the Policy Guidelines a proposal was forwarded by the Port Trust to TAMP mentioning the details of the land in question for fixing the Schedule of Rates. After receiving the proposal TAMP initiated a process of consultation with stakeholders. 33. Admittedly, the petitioners were neither forwarded the proposal of SoR nor afforded opportunity of personal hearing prior to fixing the SoR on the alleged ground that their name did not figure in the approved list of port users/stakeholders. It has been disclosed in the affidavit in opposition filed by KoPT that the petitioners have an outstanding of approximately Rs. 0.5 crore (as per pre-revised SoR plus interest) on account of occupation charges of various plots. Without entering into the dispute whether the occupation of the petitioners was legal or not fact remains that till date the petitioners are in possession of the lands in question. Non-payment of rent is a different issue altogether and the parties are always at liberty to take steps in accordance with law for redressal of their grievances. 34. It may be noted that though the respondents have been vociferous enough to raise the ground of default but the KoPT do not appear to have taken any steps to realise the arrear rent from the petitioners. The authorities could have turned down the prayer of the petitioners straightaway on the said ground of default, but instead of doing so the authorities went on to consider the case of the petitioners. The only logical inference that can be drawn from the said action of the respondents is that default was not the ground for non-forwarding the SoR proposal to the petitioners. It may be further noted that the last two lease deeds of the petitioners that expired in the year 2015 were also executed on a later date with effect from a former date. 35. As per paragraph 11.3(c) of the Policy Guidelines 2014 in case of renewal of existing leases the land is to be put to tender-cum-auction with the first right of refusal to be extended to the existing lessees and the existing lessee should be allowed to match the highest bidder. If the bidder is the existing lessee the annual lease rental would be determined on the basis of the latest SoR or the price quoted by the existing lessee in the tender-cum-auction whichever is higher. If the bidder is the existing lessee the annual lease rental would be determined on the basis of the latest SoR or the price quoted by the existing lessee in the tender-cum-auction whichever is higher. The provision of first right will also apply to expired lease in addition to existing leases. The said provision takes into consideration the case of expired lease. The lease of the petitioners having been expired will be squarely covered by the aforesaid Policy Guideline. The petitioners being the lessee of the expired lease have the first right of refusal. 36. According to the Guidelines the Land Allotment Committee recommends the market value of the land and forwards the same to the Port Trust who thereafter forwards the same to TAMP with a proposal to fix the SoR. TAMP fixes the SoR after consultation with the stakeholders. 37. The Policy Guidelines lays down that fixation of SoR shall be a consultative process and the same cannot be done without consulting the users. The petitioners being existing user of the port lands are entitled to participate in the consultation process for fixation of SoR. Without having knowledge of the complete details of the proposal forwarded by KoPT the petitioners could not have raised an effective objection for consideration by TAMP. 38. The respondents have forwarded the proposal and afforded opportunity of hearing to the other port users and also non-stake holders, i.e the association. Similar opportunity ought to have been given to the petitioners irrespective of the fact whether they are defaulters in payment of rent or not. As long as the petitioners are in possession of the port land they are entitled to participate in the consultative process. It has been noted earlier that the petitioners were interested in entering into fresh lease accordingly they would be adversely affected if the SoR is fixed behind their back, without their effective participation in the consultative process. 39. As held in the case of Cynamide India Ltd. (supra) the Court will not re-evaluate the considerations relating to price fixation and will examine if there is any hostile discrimination. The Policy Guidelines applicable in the instant case calls for consultation. The other port users were called for participation but the petitioners were not. The same amounts to discrimination. 40. The judgment of D.C. Aggarwal (supra) though in a different context speaks of procedural fairness. The Policy Guidelines applicable in the instant case calls for consultation. The other port users were called for participation but the petitioners were not. The same amounts to discrimination. 40. The judgment of D.C. Aggarwal (supra) though in a different context speaks of procedural fairness. Consultative procedure has been laid down in the Policy Guidelines governing the case. The respondents are liable to forward the proposal to the port users prior to fixing the SoR. Non supply of the same amounts to procedural laches. 41. It was held in Md. Ramzan Khan (supra) that non supply of adverse material to the affected party constitutes violation of the principles of natural justice. Similarly non supply of the proposal for SoR will adversely affect the legal right of the petitioners. 42. Shatrughna Lal (supra) held that charged employee if required to submit reply without having copies of the statements, he is deprived of the opportunity of effective hearing. In the instant case the petitioners filed their objection without having the copy of the proposal, thus depriving the petitioners an opportunity of effective hearing. 43. Binapani Dei (supra) and Rajesh Kumar (supra) both lays down that even in case of passing administrative orders the principles of natural justice is required to be followed. 44. Madhya Pradesh Industries Ltd. (supra) also speaks of an opportunity of hearing. The same need not be personal hearing, it can be by written representation. In the case at hand the respondents afforded opportunity of personal hearing to the port users but denied the same in case of the petitioners. It amounts to discrimination. 45. The constructive knowledge proposition as held in the case of Rajasthan Housing Board (supra) is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the instant case as the respondents have themselves admitted that the proposal for fixing the SoR was not forwarded to the petitioners. The fact of submitting representation objecting to the hike in SoR does not imply that the petitioners had the knowledge of the proposal which included the report of the Land Allotment Committee. 46. The fact of submitting representation objecting to the hike in SoR does not imply that the petitioners had the knowledge of the proposal which included the report of the Land Allotment Committee. 46. From the discussions made hereinabove it follows that the petitioners were entitled to have a copy of the proposal including the report of the Land Allotment Committee and the respondent KoPT ought to have forwarded the same to the petitioners prior to fixing the SoR as part of the consultative process in terms of the Policy Guidelines 2014. Not forwarding the same was discriminatory and amounts to breach of the principles of natural justice. The submission of prerogative right of TAMP in the matter of price fixation does not mean that the petitioners be deprived to participate in the consultative process. 47. The respondent KoPT is hereby directed to forward the proposal including the report of the Land Allotment Committee to the petitioners within seven days from the date of communication of a copy of this order. The petitioners may file their objection within seven days from the date of receipt of the said proposal. TAMP shall consider the objection of the petitioners within four weeks thereafter and pass a reasoned order to be communicated to the petitioners within a fortnight thereof. Till such time the reasoned order is passed and communicated to the petitioners the SoR of 2016 will not be made effective in case of the land of the petitioners. After communication of the reasoned order the respondent KoPT will be at liberty to take steps for executing fresh lease in respect of the lands in question strictly in accordance with the Policy Guidelines. 48. It is made clear that forwarding the copy of the proposal shall in no manner be construed as legalising or ratifying the possession of the petitioners in the port land. Nor will it create any possessory right in their favour. 49. WP No. 15451 (W) of 2017 is disposed of accordingly. 50. There will, however, be no order as to costs. 51. Urgent certified photocopy of this judgment, if applied for, be supplied to the parties on compliance of usual legal formalities.