JUDGMENT : Shaji P. Chaly, J. The appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned single Judge in O.P. No. 4951 of 2003 by the respondents, whereby the Original petition was allowed, and directed the Cochin Port Trust and its Officers to refund to the respondents the additional berthing charges at the rates applicable in July, 2000 for the additional 8 shifts used by the writ petitioners for unloading the cargo. The learned single Judge has arrived at the said finding since it was specifically admitted by the appellants in the counter affidavit that the ship in question 'X-Press Jaya' berthed in Cochin Port on 05.07.2000 and sailed away on 11.07.2000. At the time of berthing, the crane was available for use and the unloading of the containers from the Vessel commenced. However, after 8 containers were unloaded, the crane developed some problems and could not be operated. Thus, it was on account of the break-down of the crane, there was delay in unloading the Vessel. It was also submitted that the crane allotted to the Vessel unfortunately broke down and thus, the Vessel had to remain idle in Cochin Port Trust for an additional 8 shifts. However, it was also submitted that cranes and the other machineries, which were in constant use, occasionally broke down and steps were taken by the appellants immediately to rectify the defects so as to ensure that there was minimum wastage of time and money. It is also submitted that the appellants charged all the amounts strictly as per the Scale of Rates, and the writ petitioners and the other similarly situated persons cannot have any grievance in respect thereof. 2. Taking into account the said submissions made in the counter affidavit, it was found that the delay of 8 shifts in the matter of unloading containers from the writ petitioners' ship was solely on account of the damage of the crane. Therefore, the learned single Judge found that the contention of the appellants that the berthing charges and crane charges are separate, cannot be sustained. Therefore, the learned single Judge found that the contention of the appellants that the berthing charges and crane charges are separate, cannot be sustained. It is also found that since the delay had occurred on account of the damage to the crane, naturally the continued berthing should also be attributed to the breakdown of the crane and when the break down of the crane was clearly admitted as also the additional shifts used up for completing the unloading, the appellants cannot escape from the liability to give proportionate reduction of berthing charges. Accordingly the refund of the berthing charges was ordered by the learned single Judge. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and have perused the pleadings and documents on record. Even though notice is served on the respondents/writ petitioners, there is no appearance. 4. The paramount contention advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, is relying upon Regulation 46 of the Cochin Port Trust Regulations, 1975 which reads thus: “46. Board not liable for delay, etc.- The Board shall not be liable in respect of any detention or delay to vessels, entering, remaining in, or going out of the port or in their progress from one berth to another within the port or for detention or delay in the discharge or loading of cargoes from or into vessels, or for dead freight, delay in the loading and unloading of goods owing to a glut of vessels or goods or other circumstances beyond their control, or of a stoppage in the delivery of goods from any cause whatsoever.� 5. According to the learned counsel, the said provision makes it clear that whatever be the cause of delay, the Cochin Port Trust is entitled to impose berthing charges and the fact that merely because it was on account of the failure of crane the delay had occurred for unloading the goods cannot stand in the way of the Port Trust imposing the berthing charges in that regard. 6. The learned counsel has also invited our attention to the Scale of Rates prescribed by the Tariff Authority for Major Ports dated 09.01.2004 bearing No. Tamp/75/2002-COPT and clause 4, which reads thus: “4. 6. The learned counsel has also invited our attention to the Scale of Rates prescribed by the Tariff Authority for Major Ports dated 09.01.2004 bearing No. Tamp/75/2002-COPT and clause 4, which reads thus: “4. If any vessel is compelled to idle at container berths for continuous one hour or more due to breakdown of port equipment or power failure, no berth hire shall be levied for such period of idling.� 7. According to the learned counsel, it was only in the year 2004, the berthing charges were excluded for idling vessels on account of the failure of the port equipment or power failure. Therefore, it assumes that in view of Regulation 46, the appellants were vested with powers to impose berthing charges in spite of the equipment failure in unloading the articles from the Vessel prior to the year 2004. In that view of the matter, the sum and substance of the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants is that the learned single Judge was not right in allowing the writ petition and directing the Port to refund to the writ petitioners the additional berthing charges at the rates applicable in July 2000 for the additional 8 shifts used by the writ petitioners for unloading cargo. 8. We have evaluated the submissions made by the counsel for the appellants. In our considered opinion, Regulation 46 relied upon by the appellants discussed above deals with specific instances under which the Port Trust is vested with powers to impose berthing charges, and therefore, it cannot be said that Regulation 46 is a general or omnibus power conferred on the Cochin Port Trust to impose berthing charges under any circumstances, irrespective of the fact whether, it was on account of the failure on the part of the Cochin Port Trust that the Vessel was idling. Therefore, when the Port Trust was vested with powers only to impose the berthing charges on the specific instances made under Regulation 46, it was not proper and legal on the part of the Port Trust to impose berthing charges due to the delay occurred on account of the failure of the crane employed by the Cochin Port Trust for unloading the goods from the vessel. Merely because the Tariff Rates issued by the Tariff Authority for Major Port Trust during January, 2004 clearly specifies that if any vessel is compelled to idle at container berths for continuous one hour or more due to breakdown of the port equipment or power failure, no berth charge shall be levied for such period of idling, the berthing charges levied without conferment of power under law prior to the same, cannot be countenanced. Which thus means, the contention that prior to the introduction of the said provision in the Tariff Scale of Rates, the Port Trust was vested with powers to impose tariff rates cannot be sustained because apart from Regulation 46 as is pointed out above, there are no other provisions existing at the time of the issue in question enabling the Port Trust to impose berthing charges. Looking from that angle and appreciating the reasons assigned by the learned single Judge, we are of the considered opinion that the learned single Judge has exercised the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India correctly and in accordance with law, and therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment of the learned single Judge. Resultantly, writ appeal fails. Accordingly, it is dismissed.