Tuesday, May 31, 2011

Court refuses to make Pande, Tandon accused in Gulbarg case for now

AHMEDABAD: A special trial court hearing the Gulbarg Society massacre case on Tuesday refused to entertain the application filed by the victim-witnesses demanding implication of four cops in the case, including former police commissioner P C Pande.

Designated judge, B J Dhandha refused to pass any order in connection with arraignment of Pande along with JCP M K Tandon, then DCP P B Gondia and first investigating officer ACP S S Chudasama on charges of dereliction of duty and destruction of evidence. The court did not pass any order on the ground that the Supreme Court was seized with the matter after the SIT's report. The SC has asked the amicus curiae Raju Ramchandran to look into the matter whether the evidence calls for making a case against Tandon and other officials.

Not finding it proper to take a call on the application by the trial court at this juncture, the designated judge observed, "It is against judicial discipline to pass any order by this court by relying upon the documentary evidence of phone calls of police officers and to discuss the matter about whether four police officers may be arraigned as accused or not..."

The victims had sought arraignment of these cops first at the stage of recording evidence, but the presiding officer then, B UJoshi kept his decision pending in this regard till the stage of final arguments. Final arguments began last year, but the proceeding could not be done after the judge was transferred. This application was heard finally by the new judge, who has again concluded that this is not the stage, where this decision can be taken. "At this stage, no order is passed in this application.

The victims may submit arguments about this application at the time of final argument," the order reads. During the hearing of this application, SIT expressed its view about the role of these four cops. "They have done their job considering the situation of the day, as per satisfaction of themselves. We cannot conclude and criticize the decision right or wrong on hypothetically surmises..." Sixty-nine persons were killed in Gulbarg Society on February 28, 2002, and 67 persons are being tried for the offence.

HC notice to govt over TET

HMEDABAD: The Gujarat high court on Tuesday issued notice to the state government asking them to explain why social science subject is not included in the teachers' eligibility test (TET), which is mandatory before recruitment of primary teachers and vidhya sahayaks. National Council for Teachers' Education (NCTE) last year made it mandatory for all aspiring primary teachers to clear an entrance test.

Accordingly, the state government came up with resolution for conducting the test. The TET is scheduled on June 12, and the last date for filling up the forms is June 2. On Tuesday, three aspirants approached the high court claiming that they could not submit online form, as social science subject is not available as an option. They are graduates in that subject.

Their inability to fill up the form would automatically result in their disqualification. Hence authorities should be directed to stall the examination and consider them as candidates by including social science as a subject, they requested. Justice J B Pardiwala has asked the authorities, including the director of primary education, secretary of state examination board and the state education department secretary, to file a reply by Thursday, when further proceeding is kept on this petition.

n addition, even BA/BEd with Urdu language as a subject was not in eligibility criteria for recruitment. Some of the aspirants approached the department on Monday and were assured of positive action by the officials.

Judge gets jail in graft case

AHMEDABAD: A judicial officer was awarded jail term of two years on Monday. A rural court on the Mirzapur campus found Premji Gohil guilty on charges of corruption and having disproportionate assets to his known sources of income.

Gohil, who was serving as judicial magistrate first class in a Pardi court in south Gujarat in 2002, was accused of corrupt practices by local lawyers. Upon receiving complaints, the Gujarat high court vigilance department initiated an inquiry against the magistrate.

During the inquiry, the judicial officer was found in possession of many properties which according to Gohil were given to him as gifts. He even showed various gift agreements to justify his possession over different properties. However, the department was not convinced with his documents and lodged a criminal complaint against him in 2005.

A trial then commenced before additional sessions judge V K Vyas against three persons. Gohil`s wife, Shobhna, and his brother-in-law, Pradeep Makwana are also facing abetment charges. Public prosecutor G H Majmudar argued that Gohil was a judicial officer and well versed with law, yet he chose to disobey law of the land and indulged in corrupt practices. He also argued that the gift agreements put forth by Gohil were forged documents.

After hearing examination of 31 witnesses and perusal of 42 documents, the court held Gohil guilty and sentenced him to two years` imprisonment. The court, however, acquitted the two others.

Govt. asks departments to set up RTI cells before July end

To streamline disposal of applications and bring in more transparency, the Central government has directed all ministries, departments and public sector units to set up an exclusive “RTI cell”.

It has decided to give a one time grant of up to Rs. 50,000 for developing necessary infrastructure and purchasing equipment like computers for speedy disposal of pleas under the Right to Information Act.

“Experience of past five years has shown that there is a need to expand the scope of the Central Point so as to deal with the RTI related issues effectively,” a circular issued by Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) said.

“It is recommended that Ministries/Departments may set up RTI Cells to streamline the receipt and disposal of RTI applications...Ministries/Departments may also avail of a one-time grant of up to Rs. 50,000 for procuring a computer along with a printer and scanner facility for RTI Cells under the Centrally Sponsored Plan Scheme ‘improving transparency and accountability through effective Implementation of RTI’ being implemented by this department,” it said.

Government has set a deadline of July 31 for setting up of RTI cell.

Right to Information Act 2005 mandates timely response to citizen requests for government information.

Supreme Court grants bail to Binayak’s associate Guha

The Supreme Court on Tuesday granted bail to Piyush Guha, who was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment along with civil rights activist Binayak Sen in a sedition case.

The vacation bench of justices G.S. Singhvi and C.K. Prasad suspended the sentence of life imprisonment and directed Mr. Guha’s release on bail.

The bench also directed Mr. Guha to furnish a bail bond of Rs 2 lakh and two sureties of Rs 1 lakh each.

Mr. Guha, a Kolkata-based businessman, was convicted along with Mr. Sen and Naxal ideologue Narayan Sanyal for colluding with Maoists to establish a network to fight the state. They were awarded life imprisonment.

He then challenged his conviction in the Chhattisgarh High Court which refused to grant him bail in the case.

The apex court had on May 24 issued notice to the state government and had asked it to file its response by today.

Challenging the order of the Chhattisgarh High Court, advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for Mr. Guha, had pleaded with the court to grant bail saying he has already spent four years in jail.

He had also pointed out that the apex court recently granted bail to Mr. Sen.

The apex court had granted bail to 61-year-old Sen on April 15 while questioning his conviction and life sentence for sedition, saying he could be a sympathiser of Naxalites and nothing beyond that.

“No case of sedition is made out,” the apex court had said. “He may be a sympathiser (of Naxalites) but it did not make him guilty of sedition.

“The worst can be said that he was found in possession of general documents (relating to Naxal activities) but how can it be said that such possession would attract the charge of sedition? How can you level the charge of sedition?” the bench had asked.

The conviction and life imprisonment of Mr. Sen, along with Mr. Guha and Mr. Sanyal, had led to outrage in many quarters, including international human rights bodies which had sought government’s permission to observe the court proceedings in the case.

Court notice to gutka-makers for using plastic pouches

The Supreme Court on Monday issued notice to gutka manufacturers on an application alleging that even after the ban order restraining them from using plastic material in package sachets they were flouting the law and were still using plastic pouches.

A vacation Bench of Justices G.S. Singhvi and C.K. Prasad issued notice on the application filed by advocate Abani Kumar Sahu, who alleged that almost all the companies — Pan Parag, RMD Gutka, Dilbag Gutka, Rajashree Gutka, Rajdarabar Gutka — were flouting the order. The Bench posted the matter for final hearing on July 6.

The application said: “Even long after the cut-off date of March 1, fixed by the Supreme Court, all the gutka and pan masala manufacturers are using plastic material in package sachets to sell such product to public. It is a deliberate and ingenious flouting of the law on their part.”

Deceptive concealment

Mr. Sahu said: “Many gutka and pan masala companies continue to use regular plastic material within the outward paper packaging material to deceptively conceal the usage of such plastic material and convey a misleading picture of superficial and seemingly visible external compliance with the Supreme Court's order.”

He said that such violations could not have occurred without the active collusion or tacit connivance of the officials of the enforcement machinery of the government. He sought a direction to restrain these companies from using plastic material in their packaging sachets.

Monday, May 30, 2011

Dowry case: SC rejects bail plea of Chiranjeevi's son-in-law

The Supreme Court today dismissed the anticipatory bail plea of G R Sirish Bharadwaj, estranged younger son-in-law of Praja Rajyam president and Telegu mega star Chiranjeevi, facing a dowry harassment case.

A vacation Bench of Justices G S Singhvi and Chandramauli Prasad, rejecting the plea of Sirish's counsel that bail be granted as the two families were seeking an amicable settlement, asked the accused to surrender before the court concerned in Hyderabad.

Srija, youngest daughter of Chirajneevi, married Shirish in 2007 amidst high drama against the wishes of her family, so much so that the couple rushed to the Delhi High Court and obtained police protection. The couple also held a press conference to denounce Chiranjeevi's alleged attempt to break the marriage.

However, four years down the line, the marriage turned out to be a disaster with Srija filing a complaint of dowry harassment against Shirish and his mother.

Rights activist's detention criticised

The detention of human rights activist Gautam Navlakha at the Srinagar International airport on Saturday has been criticised even as the Jammu and Kashmir government says his entry will pose a “danger” to peace and tranquillity.

Mr. Navlakha, who has been visiting Kashmir regularly to highlight alleged human rights abuses, was to have attended a book release function on that day. He was served with an order by the Budgam district Magistrate stating that his entry had been banned under Section 144.

Since there was no flight back to Delhi in the evening he spent the night at the Humhama police station. He was sent back on Sunday.

Angana Chatterji, U.S.-based convener of the International People's Tribunal on Human Rights and Justice in Kashmir (IPTK), criticised the detention of Mr. Navlakha, a member of IPTK, and said such acts targeted and obstructed the work of the Tribunal.

Senior lawyer Zaffar Shah said the government's action was unlawful and unjustified.

District Magistrate (Budgam) Mohammad Rafi defended the decision saying such an action could be taken under Section 144. “It is not only about assembly of four or more people,” he told The Hindu.

Karim Morani put in Tihar jail

He has used every possible legal subterfuge to delay the ultimate"

Karim Morani, Bollywood film producer and an accused in the 2G spectrum scam case, was on Monday arrested and lodged in the Tihar Central Jail after the special court here rejected his bail plea noting that he had used every possible “legal subterfuge to delay the ultimate.”

He becomes the 14th person to be remanded in judicial custody in Tihar Jail in the case — a high-profile list that boasts two Tamil Nadu politicians, three real estate tycoons and two bureaucrats besides six top business executives of various companies, including Reliance ADA Group, Kalaignar TV and DB Realty.

The court had last Monday dismissed his anticipatory bail plea and ordered him to appear the next day or face “coercive process.” On appearing, he moved a plea seeking that a bail bond be accepted under Section 88 of the Criminal Procedure Code to avoid being taken into custody.

Morani, the promoter of Cineyug Films, was chargesheeted on April 25 for his alleged role in transferring Rs.200 crore from Dynamix Realty to Kalaignar TV and issued summons to appear before the court on May 6. But he took recourse to medical grounds to refrain from presenting himself in court until last Tuesday. The CBI had alleged that he received a consideration of Rs.6 crore for participating in the transaction.

Taking note of his delaying tactics, Special Judge O.P. Saini said: “I may reluctantly add that the applicant/accused has used every possible legal subterfuge to delay the ultimate as he has filed seven applications within a span of less than one month.”

“An accused is entitled to avail himself of all legal remedies which may be available to him in law and there can be no objection to this, but the sheer number of applications filed by him, in my humble view, reflects adversely on his conduct indicating that he is interested in deliberately delaying the disposal of the matter by seeking date after date, on one pretext or the other,” Mr. Saini said.

Mr. Saini concluded his 67-page order with a gentle reprimand: “I sincerely hope, considering the nature of the case, he would improve in future and would cooperate in early disposal of the case.”

Allahabad HC scraps land acquisition in Greater Noida

In yet another setback to Mayawati Government in Uttar Pradesh, the Allahabad High Court on Monday quashed acquisition of 170 hectares of land at Gulistan village in Greater Noida for industrial development.

The order was passed by a division bench comprising Justice Sunil Ambawani and Justice Kashi Nath Pandey on a petition filed by landowners and farmers challenging the government notification for land acquisition issued on September 5, 2007 under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act depriving the aggrieved persons of filing their objections on the ground that the matter was urgent.

The declaration of the acquisition was made on February 27, 2008, about more than five months.

The court rejected the contention that there was any urgency and said the landowners have to be given an opportunity for hearing by filing their objections.

This was the third time that the HC has set aside land acquisition in Greater Noida where the farmers are up in arms against UP government's land acquisition demanding adequate compensation for their land and had clashed with police earlier this month.

On May 12 and May 15, the HC had quashed acquisition of more than 170 hectares in Gautam Budh Nagar district.

UK Council Takes Twitter To Court In California

In a US court, South Tyneside Council has succeeded in forcing Twitter to name a bothersome tweeter
South Tyneside Council has successfully taken Twitter to court in California to force it to reveal the identity of a troublesome user.
The council decided to take action to reveal the identity of a tweeter, aliased Mr Monkey, who has been posting contentious messages. This is a different spin on the methods chosen by the legal team using English law to try to persuade Twitter to name users who transgressed the super injunction ruling awarded to footballer Ryan Giggs.
Twitter Is Subject To California Law
Whether Twitter, as a US-based company, will accede to rulings taken by foreign courts is yet to be seen. However, it appears that South Tyneside’s direct method of using a Californian court has succeed in persuading Twitter to deny the user a right to anonymity.
The council claims it already has been given the identity of the allegedly libellous user but Twitter is keeping tight-lipped about the issue. The messaging company usually resists revealing information about users even though its privacy policy says it will “comply with a law, regulation or legal request”.
The case surrounds councillor Ahmed Khan who is suspected of authoring unfounded allegations against council leaders. He denies the allegation but said he was told by Twitter his account details would be disclosed if a subpoena was granted by a Californian court. He claimed that the move “not only breaches my human rights, but it potentially breaches the human rights of anyone who has ever sent me a message on Twitter”.
The cost to the council of the action has not been disclosed but is believed to run into hundreds of thousands of pounds. This could give rise to complaints from local tax payers because the council cannot sue for libel. Any councillors affected would have to take private proceedings at their own cost.
A spokesman for the local authority explained, “The council has a duty of care to protect its employees and as this blog contains damaging claims about council officers, legal action is being taken to identify those responsible.”

Supreme Court refuses to entertain plea against Bhatta Parsaul violence

The Supreme Court on Monday refused to entertain a petition seeking a CBI enquiry into the alleged excesses and violence unleashed by the Uttar Pradesh government on farmers protesting against “forcible” acquisition of land at Bhatta Parsaul.

A Bench of Justices G. S. Singhvi and C. K. Prasad asked the petitioner to approach the Allahabad High Court since it had already taken cognisance and was dealing with the issue.

Senior counsel U. U. Lalit, appearing for the petitioner farmers, tried to argue that the matter needs consideration by the apex court as it involved the life and livelihood of thousands of farmers who have been rendered homeless and were facing constant threat to their lives.

The counsel alleged that the matter needs to be probed by the CBI as it was the official machinery including the local police which had allegedly let loose a reign of terror after forcibly acquiring the land under section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act.

Under the said section, the government can dispense with the mandatory proceeding prescribed under other sections of the Act if there was any urgency.

Mr. Lalit argued that there was no urgency and the State government officials had indulged in large scale violence against agitating farmers. He also cited purported statements of eyewitnesses of the police cremating bodies.

However, the arguments failed to convince the Bench which asked the petitioner to approach the Allahabad High Court for appropriate remedy.

The Bench also pointed that it would not be proper for the apex court to entertain the petition since various human rights organisations like National Commission for Women and National Commission for Scheduled Castes/ Scheduled Tribes were also investigating the alleged excesses.

Saturday, May 28, 2011

Court issues NBW against actor Sanjay Dutt

A local court here today issued non-bailable warrant against actor Sanjay Dutt for not appearing before it in connection with a violation of model code of conduct case lodged during last Lok Sabha elections.

Judicial Magistrate Krishna Kumar issued the warrant against Dutt after he failed to appear before the court despite repeated summons and a bailable warrant, prosecution officials said here.

A case was lodged against Dutt, who was then national general secretary of Samajwadi Party, in April 2009 for making some controversial remarks while campaigning in favour of the party candidate Arshad Jamal.

Despite repeated summons when the actor did not appeared before the court a bailable warrant was issued on March 26 this year, they said.

The court also issued summon against SP candidate and co-accused in the case Jamal and directed Superintendent of Police and DIG of Azamgarh to serve the same through city inspector.

The court said if report on serving summon was not submitted on the next date of hearing on July 8 action would be taken against the inspector. 

CIC to CBI: why have Ambani brothers not been chargesheeted?

In 2006 case relating to alleged masking of international calls as local calls

The Central Information Commission has directed the Central Bureau of Investigation to state why it has not chargesheeted the Ambani brothers, Mukesh and Anil, in a 2006 case relating to the alleged masking of international calls as local calls.

In July 2010, the CBI chargesheeted Manoj Modi, a top executive of the Mukesh Ambani group, and five others in the call re-routing case. The CBI began investigating the case in 2006 — a year after the Ambani brothers reached a settlement under which Reliance Infocomm went to Mr. Anil Ambani. However, Mr. Modi was drawn into the dragnet because the alleged re-routing happened when the company was under the elder brother. Mr. Modi in fact oversaw the setting up of Reliance Infocomm.

In response to a Right to Information application seeking to know why the CBI had excluded the Ambani brothers from the charge sheet, the Public Information Officer (PIO) of the CBI said the reasons were available on record but could not be disclosed because the information was prohibited under Section 8(1) (h) of the RTI Act.

The CBI argued before the Central Information Commissioner Shailesh Gandhi that disclosing the information would impede the process of investigation; indeed that knowing why the Ambani brothers were not being prosecuted would help other accused persons to submit that they too should not be prosecuted. Mr. Gandhi, however, was unimpressed: “The Commission is unable to understand how lack of evidence against a person can be used by another person against whom evidence has in fact been found, leading to filing of charge sheet against the latter.”

Mr. Gandhi ruled that the CBI could not get away by simply invoking exemption but had to clearly establish that disclosure of information would impede prosecution. Quoting a Delhi High Court judgment, he said access to information under Section of the RTI Act was the rule and exemptions under Section 8 the exception: “A rights-based enactment is akin to a welfare measure. [It] should receive a liberal interpretation.”

Further, “The PIO has failed to produce or place reliance on any cogent evidence or material before the Commission on the basis of which she can establish that disclosure of information would impede the prosecution of offenders.”

Friday, May 27, 2011

C.B.I v. KESHUB MAHINDRA [2011] INSC 493 (11 May 2011)

Judgement
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CURATIVE PETITION (CRL.) NOS. 39-42 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 1672-1675 OF 1996

C.B.I. & Ors. ... Petitioner(s)
versus
Keshub Mahindra etc. etc. ...Respondent(s)

O R D E R

S.H. KAPADIA, CJI

1. These curative petitions are filed by Central Bureau of Investigation for recalling the judgment and order dated 13.9.1996 of this Court in Keshub Mahindra vs. State of M.P. (Criminal Appeal Nos. 1672-1675 of 1996 decided on 2 13.9.1996 reported in 1996 (6) SCC 129), on the following premises :
(i) When this Court, by the said judgment dated 13.9.1996 quashed the charges framed against accused Nos. 2 to 5, 7 to 9 and 12 under Sections 304 (Part II), 324, 326 and 429 IPC and directed the trial court to frame charges under Section 304A IPC, this Court had before it adequate material to make out prima facie, an offence chargeable under Section 304 (Part II) IPC. Therefore, this Court committed a serious error in ignoring such material and quashing the charge under Section 304 (Part II) IPC.
(ii) The evidence placed in support of the charge under Section 304A IPC during the trial of the said accused before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhopal showed prima facie that the said accused had committed offences punishable under Section 304 (Part II) IPC. But for the said judgment of this Court dated 13.9.1996, the learned Magistrate would have, by taking note of the said 3 material, committed the case to the Court of Sessions under Section 323 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short `the Code'). However, in view of categorical finding recorded by this Court, in its binding judgment dated 13.9.1996 that there was no material for a charge under Section 304 (Part II) IPC and consequential quashing of the said charge, with a direction to frame the charge under Section 304A IPC, the learned Magistrate was barred from exercising his judicial power under Section 323 of the Code, even though the Code vested the jurisdiction in him to alter the charge or commit the case to the Court of Sessions as the case may be, on the basis of evidence that came on record during the trial.
(iii) The judgment dated 13.9.1996 therefore resulted in perpetuation of irremediable injustice necessitating filing of the curative petitions seeking recall of the judgment dated 13.9.1996.
4
2. On the night of December 02, 1984 there was a massive escape of lethal gas from the MIC storage tank at Bhopal plant of the Union Carbide (I) Ltd. (UCIL) into the atmosphere causing the death of 5,295 people leaving 5,68,292 people suffering from different kinds of injuries ranging from permanent total disablement to less serious injuries. On the day following the incident, the SHO, Hanuman Ganj Police Station, suo moto, registered a Crime Case No. 1104 of 1984 under Section 304A IPC. On December 06, 1984 investigation was handed over to the CBI, which investigation stood completed, resulting in filing of charge sheets by the CBI in the Court of C.J.M., Bhopal on December 01, 1987. Since the charge sheets inter alia alleged commission of offence under Sections 304, 324, 326, 429 read with Section 35 of IPC, the case was committed by the C.J.M. to the Sessions Court as Sessions Case No. 237 of 1992 (See : Order dated 30th April, 1992). On 8th April, 1993, the 9th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal passed an order framing charges against the accused Nos. 5 to 9 under Sections 304 (Part II), 324, 326 and 429 of 5 IPC and against accused Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 12 under the very same Sections but with the aid of Section 35 of IPC. It may be mentioned that at the time of framing of charge, the Court had before it, accused Nos. 2 to 9 and accused No. 12 (UCIL) whereas accused No. 1 (Warren Anderson) was absconding and the Court was also unable to bring before it the other two companies, UCC and Union Carbide Eastern Inc., accused Nos. 10 and 11.
3. The accused after having unsuccessfully challenged the order framing charge by the Court of Sessions before the Madhya Pradesh High Court, brought the matter to this Court in four separate appeals in which the leading case was Appeal (Cri.) No. 1672 of 1996 filed at the instance of accused No. 2 which stood ultimately disposed of by the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court dated September 13, 1996 in the case of Keshub Mahindra (supra). This Court held that on the material produced by the prosecution before the Trial Court at the stage of framing of charges, no charges could have been framed against the accused under Section 304 (Part 6 II) or under Sections 324, 326, 429 with or without the aid of Section 35 IPC and it accordingly quashed the charges framed by the Sessions Court and directed that on the material led by the prosecution the charge under Section 304A IPC could be made out against accused Nos. 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 and under the same sections with the aid of Section 35 against accused Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 12. Applications seeking leave to file a review petition being Criminal Misc. Petition Nos. 1713-16 of 1997 in a proposed review petition stood dismissed on March 10, 1997. These applications were filed jointly by Bhopal Gas Peedith Sangharsh Sahyog Samiti (BGPSSS), Bhopal Gas Peedith Mahila Udyog Sangathan (BGPMUS) and Bhopal Group for Information and Action (BGIA). The CBI/State of M.P. did not question the said 1996 judgment or filed any review petition under Article 137 of the Constitution and instead proceeded for the next 14 years to prosecute the accused under Sections 304A, 336, 337, 338 read with Section 35 IPC. It is only on 26th April, 2010, after the defence evidence stood concluded and after conclusion of the oral 7 arguments by the Senior Public Prosecutor, that, a petition was filed jointly by BGPSSS and BGPMUS under Section 216 Cr.P.C. for enhancement of the charge to Section 304 (Part II) IPC. This application was not supported by CBI. The said application was rejected by the C.J.M. on the same day. However, this order of the C.J.M. was also never challenged under Section 397/399 or under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Ultimately on June 7, 2010 Criminal Case No. 1104 of 1984 stood disposed of by the C.J.M. vide his judgment convicting accused Nos. 2 to 5, 7 to 9 and 12 under Sections 304A, 336, 337, 338 read with Section 35 IPC and sentencing them to two years' imprisonment. On June 29, 2010 Criminal Appeal No. 369 of 2010 was filed by State of M.P. before the Court of Sessions with a prayer for enhancement of sentences under the existing charges. On the same day the State of M.P. also filed Criminal Revision Application No. 330 of 2010 before the Court of Sessions under Section 397 Cr.P.C., challenging the alleged failure of the C.J.M. to enhance the charges to Section 304 (Part II) in exercise of his jurisdiction under Section 216 Cr.P.C., and 8 to commit the trial of the case to Sessions under Section 323 Cr.P.C. and inter alia praying for a direction to enhance charges and commit. On July 29, 2010 Criminal Appeal No. 487 of 2010 was filed by the CBI before the Court of Sessions for enhancement of sentences under the existing charges. On 23rd August, 2010, CBI filed the criminal revision only after the present curative petitions were filed before this Court on August 2, 2010. All the appeals and revisions remain pending before the Court of Sessions.
4. It is clear to us that in the criminal revisions filed by the CBI and the State of M.P. the legal position is correctly stated. But the curative petitions are based on a plea that is wrong and fallacious. As noted above, one of the main planks of the curative petitions is that even though in course of trial before the Magistrate, additional evidences have come on record that fully warrant the framing of the higher charge (s) and the trial of the accused on those higher charges, as long as the 1996 judgment stands the Sessions Court would feel helpless in framing any higher charges against the accused in the same way as the trial 9 court observed that in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court no court had the power to try the accused for an offence higher than the one under Section 304A of IPC. The assumption is wrong and without any basis. It stems from a complete misapprehension in regard to the binding nature of the 1996 judgment. No decision by any court, this Court not excluded, can be read in a manner as to nullify the express provisions of an Act or the Code and the 1996 judgment never intended to do so. In the 1996 judgment, this Court was at pains to make it absolutely clear that its findings were based on materials gathered in investigation and brought before the Court till that stage. At every place in the judgment where the Court records the finding or makes an observation in regard to the appropriate charge against the accused, it qualifies the finding or the observation by saying "on the materials produced by the prosecution for framing charge". "At this stage", is a kind of a constant refrain in that judgment. The 1996 judgment was rendered at the stage of sections 209/228/240 of the Code and we are completely unable to see how the judgment can be read to say that it removed from the Code sections 323, 216, 386, 397, 10 399, 401 etc. or denuded a competent court of the powers under those provisions. In our view, on the basis of the material on record, it is wrong to assume that the 1996 judgment is a fetter against the proper exercise of powers by a court of competent jurisdiction under the relevant provisions of the Code. If according to the curative petitioner, the learned Magistrate failed to appreciate the correct legal position and misread the decision dated 13.9.1996 as tying his hands from exercising the power under Section 323 or under Section 216 of the Code, it can certainly be corrected by the appellate/revisional court. In fact, the revision petitions though belatedly filed by the State of M.P. and the CBI (which are still pending) have asserted this position in the grounds of revision. Moreover, no ground falling within the parameters of Rupa Ashok Hurra vs. Ashok Hurra 2002 (4) SCC 388 is made out in the curative petitions. Also, no satisfactory explanation is given to file such curative petitions after about 14 years from 1996 judgment of the Supreme Court. The curative petitions are therefore dismissed.

5. Nothing stated above shall be construed as expression of any view or opinion on the merits of the matters pending before the learned Sessions Judge, Bhopal. 

.................................CJI 
(S. H. Kapadia) ...................................J.
(Altamas Kabir) ...................................J.
(R.V. Raveendran) ...................................J.
(B. Sudershan Reddy) ...................................J.

APM TERMINALS B.V. v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. [2011] INSC 492 (11 May 2011)

Judgement
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.4270 OF 2011 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C)No.13893 of 2010)

APM TERMINALS B.V. ... APPELLANT WITH T.C.(CIVIL) NOS.36-37 OF 2010
V/s
UNION OF INDIA

ALTAMAS KABIR, J.

1. Leave granted in SLP(C)No.13893 of 2010, which is being heard along with Transferred Case (Civil) 2 Nos.36-37 of 2010. While the appeal has been filed by APM Terminals B.V. against the decision of the High Court, dismissing its writ petition, challenging the decision of the Board of Trustees for the Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust to exclude the appellant from participating in the tender process for the development of the Fourth Container Terminal at the Bombay Port through public-private partnership, the transfer petitions have been filed by PSA Sical Terminals Ltd. for transfer of Writ Petition Nos.19851 and 19384 of 2010 pending before the Madras High Court, to this Court. As the questions involved in the writ petitions pending before the Madras High Court were the same as those raised in the appeal filed by APM Terminals B.V., we had directed the transfer petitions to be heard along with SLP(C)No.13893 of 2010, out of which the present appeal arises. 3

2. In the appeal, the appellant has challenged the validity and propriety of the decision taken by the Board of Trustees of the Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust, hereinafter referred to as the "JNPT", to exclude the appellant from participating in the tender process for the Fourth Container Terminal under the JNPT, through public-private partnership, and praying for quashing of the said decision with leave to the appellant to participate in the tender process in accordance with the policy indicated in Circular No. PD-12013/2/2005-JNPT dated 26th September, 2007, issued by the Union of India. The further prayer of the appellant was to read the provisions of the said Circular into the Licence Agreement dated 10th August, 2004, executed between the appellant and JNPT, and, consequently, to release the appellant from the restrictions contained in Clause 8.31 of the Licence Agreement and/or to treat the same as not binding on the appellant. Clause 8.31 of the Licence Agreement 4 which was executed by the Board of Trustees, JNPT, in favour of the appellant, provides as follows :

"8.31 The Licensee acknowledges and agrees that it shall forego the right to bid for either directly or indirectly, including being a Management Contractor through any associate company, whether such company is registered in India or any other country, or any company in which the Licensee has a shareholding for the Additional Facilities or existing facilities during the term of this Agreement. The Licensee also agrees that in the event of it or its parent company taking over/acquiring/amalgamating/merging with the licensee or the parent company to whom the Additional Facilities are awarded it shall be obliged to divest its stake in one of the two licenses to a third entity not linked to the Licensee within 6 months from the date of such change in control failing which it shall be deemed to be a Licensee Event of Default. The Licensee also agrees that in the event of it or its parent company being taken over/acquired/amalgamated/merged by another licensee operating container facilities at JNPT it shall be obliged to divest the License to a third entity not linked to the Licensee within 6 months from the date of such change in control failing which it shall be deemed to be a Licensee Event of Default. The Licensee acknowledges, agrees and accepts the above as essence of this Agreement and the Licence granted to the Licensee." 5

3. Before the High Court, on behalf of the appellant Company, it was claimed that on account of subsequent resolutions adopted by the Board of Trustees of JNPT, which had the effect of altering the policy with regard to entrustment of operational facilities at the port to provide competition and to prevent monopolies, the provisions of Clause 8.31 would have to be reconsidered in the light of the changed circumstances. Before proceeding any further it will be worthwhile to briefly indicate the background in which the present lis has arisen.

4. The Jawaharlal Nehru Port Bulk Terminal was commissioned on 26th May, 1989, and was designed to handle goods imported in bulk, such as fertilizers, fertilizer raw materials and food grains, with the help of mechanized bulk-handling facilities. With the passage of time, the Central Government found it difficult to maintain the Bulk Terminal and 6 decided to convert the Bulk Terminal into a Container Terminal and to remodel the same on a Build, Operate and Transfer (BOT) Basis on licence for a period of 30 years. Since 1996, it has been the policy of the Central Government to permit participation/investment by the private sector in utilizing the assets of the Port, construction and creation of additional assets, lease of equipment, pilotage, cargo handling, etc. In fact, guidelines had been issued from time to time by the Ministry of Surface Transport which was to be followed by the Major Ports for private sector participation. In pursuance of such policy, the Central Government introduced the process of privatization, subject however, to the regulatory role of the JNPT. Within the regulatory frame-work it was made clear that the Port authorities should ensure that private investment did not result in the creation of private monopolies and that private facilities were available to all users on equal and 7 competitive terms.

5. The appellant is a Company incorporated under the laws of the Netherlands. Together with the Container Corporation of India Limited it formed a Joint Venture Company under the name and style of "Gateway Terminals India Pvt. Ltd." registered under the Companies Act, 1956. The said Joint Venture Company, hereinafter referred to as the "GTI", was the successful bidder in the Tender floated by JNPT for development of its existing Bulk Terminal into a Container Terminal. Thereafter, in keeping with the guidelines issued by the Central Government in 1996, which were described as mandatory, the JNPT floated a Tender for the development of a new 600 meter Quay Length Container Terminal at Navi Mumbai and Nhava Sheva International Container Terminal, hereinafter referred to as the "NSICT", was the successful bidder in respect of the said Tender. The licence 8 granted to NSICT to operate the first Container Terminal at JNPT culminated in a Build, Operate and Transfer Licence Agreement dated 3rd July, 1997 between JNPT and NSICT which was to subsist for a period of 30 years from the date of the agreement. Clause 2.3 of the said Licence Agreement provides as follows :

"The License will not bar the Licensee from participating in any subsequent bids invited by the Licensor for operation of Container Terminal."

6. Accordingly, NSICT was given liberty to participate in any subsequent bid for operation of the Container Terminal.


7. In 2002, JNPT floated another Tender for the development of the Second Container Terminal at JNPT and invited Requests for Qualification (RFQ) for the construction thereof. In order to prevent monopoly and promote competition, the JNPT subsequently incorporated Clause 1.3 in the Tender 9 documents for the development of the Second Container Terminal, which reads as follows :

"Clause 1.3 : The port is desirous of entrusting the Project of redevelopment of the bulk terminal to a container terminal, on BOT basis, to another licensee other than the existing Private Terminal Operator (Licensee) at JNPT i.e. Nhava Sheva International Container Terminal (NSICT) Limited or their associates, P&O or the associates, interconnected or sister companies or either of them."

8. The net result was that NSICT was precluded from participating in the Tender for the development of the Second Container Terminal at JNPT, despite the express provisions of Clause 2.3 of the Licence Agreement.

9. The said decision of the JNPT was challenged by NSICT and its affiliate, P&O Australia Ports Pvt. Ltd., by way of Writ Petition No.3083 of 2002 in the Bombay High Court. During the hearing of the said writ petition, the Union of India and JNPT took the stand that the 1996 Policy and the 10 guidelines would prevail over Clause 2.3 of the Licence Agreement between the said Respondents and the NSICT. Upholding the decision of the Respondents to exclude P&O Australia Ports Pvt. Ltd. and NSICT from participating in the bid for the development of the Second Container Terminal, the Bombay High Court dismissed the writ petition by its order dated 28th January, 2003. The said decision of the Bombay High Court was challenged before this Court, which declined to interfere with the order of the Bombay High Court. However, the Petitioner's Joint Venture Company, GTI Pvt. Ltd., was permitted to bid in the Tender for the development of the Second Container Terminal at JNPT. On completion of the bidding process, the work of development of the Second Container Terminal was awarded to GTI for a term of 30 years from the date of the Licence Agreement which also contained Clause 8.31, extracted hereinabove. In fact, before the Bombay High Court, JNPT had taken 11 a stand that Clause 8.31 had been subsequently incorporated in the Licence Agreement in view of the guidelines promulgated in 1996, which were then in force.


10. In the meanwhile, on or about 26th September, 2007, a decision was taken by the Union of India to alter the 1996 policy and a Circular No.PD- 12013/2/2005-JNPT, was issued indicating that the JNPT should proceed to invite global competitive bidding for an independent "Stand Alone" Container Terminal to expand the Container towards North of JNPT by 330 meters, which was designated as the Third Container Terminal. It also clarified the eligibility of existing private container terminal operators at JNPT to compete and bid for any project. In the said Circular dated 26th September, 2007, it was, inter alia, indicated as follows :

"In the instant case while JNPT is in the process of undertaking the bidding for the development of the 330 metre extension of 12 container berth towards North of NSICT project as a stand alone project on BOT basis (330 metre extension project) there are two different private BOT operators operating container terminals in JN Port. As a rational and logical consequence of the stand taken earlier it has been decided that the successful bidder of the previous container terminal on BOT basis (Maersk A/S - CONCOR Consortium) and/or their subsidiaries/allied organizations should be excluded from bidding for the 330 metre extension project. This would mean that for the next BOT container terminal in JN Port in future, the successful bidder of the 330 metre extension project would be excluded and so on.

It has also been decided that the above convention shall be followed in all Ports in its true spirit with a view to avoid monopoly and promote competition till such time a formal Policy is finalized and notified."


11. As a result of the above, neither the appellant nor its affiliates and/or subsidiaries/allied organizations were permitted to participate in the bid for the Stand Alone Container Terminal. Thereafter, in the year 2000, the JNPT floated yet another Tender for development of the Third 13 Container Terminal at JNPT, inviting Requests for Qualification for selection of a developer for the development of the said terminal in which it was categorically mentioned as follows:

"JNPT is desirous of entrusting this project to a Licensee other than Maersk A/S-Concor Consortium and/or their subsidiaries/allied organizations including GTIPL."


12. The explanation given for the insertion of the said clause was to implement the Circular dated 26th September, 2007. GTI's plea to allow it to participate in the bid was rejected. The appellant was, therefore, subsequently barred from participating in the Tender process for the development of the Third Container Terminal at JNPT. NSICT was, however, allowed to participate in the said Tender process for the development of the Third Container Terminal at the JNPT UN, but such Tender has not yet been finalized.

14

13. In the meantime, on 2nd March, 2009, JNPT floated Tender No. PD/N-14th CT/C-60/2009 and issued a global invitation of a Request for Qualification for development of the Fourth Container Terminal at JNPT. The said Tender contained the following clause.

"The successful bidder/consortium members and/or their subsidiaries/allied organiza- tions in the project for the development of a Stand Alone Container Handling Facility with a key length of 330 meters towards North at JNPT was to be excluded from the bidding in respect of Fourth Container Terminal either as a single applicant or as a consortium."

14. On a plain understanding of the above mentioned clause, neither the appellant nor its associate companies/allied organizations and/or consortium of GTI was precluded from participating in the said Tender for the development of the Fourth Container Terminal and raising its bid therein. The appellant, thereupon, along with its letter dated 5th March, 2009, addressed to the JNPT, forwarded a 15 Demand Draft for Rs.10,000/- towards purchase of the RFQ document for participation in the bidding process for the Fourth Container Terminal. The appellant was provided with a copy of the RFQ documents, wherein, in Clause 2.2.1(e), it was categorically stipulated as follows :

"2.2.1(e) To avoid private monopoly and to promote competition, the successful bidder/consortium members and/or their subsidiaries/allied organization in th project for the "Development of a stand alone contasiner handling facility with a quay length of 330-m towards North at NJPT" shall be excluded from the bidding for DEVELOPMENT OF FOURTH CONTAINER TERMINAL either as a single applicant or as a consortium. Further, for the next BOT container terminal in JN Port in future, the successful bidder/consortium members in the DEVELOMENT OF FOURTH CONTAINER TERMINAL Project would be excluded and so on."


15. Even at this stage, JNPT did not preclude the appellant from participating in the said tender in respect of the Fourth Container Terminal at JNPT. The appellant was, thereafter, invited to 16 participate in the process for grant of licence for the Fourth Container Terminal. However, to the surprise of the appellant, on 29th June, 2009, the appellant was informed that GTI and/or its associates/allied organizations had been disqualified from bidding for the Fourth Container Terminal in view of Clause 8.31 of the Licence Agreement. As indicated hereinbefore, it was after such decision that the appellant, who was worried about the rights and entitlements arising out of the said Circular, filed Writ Petition No.1551 of 2008 before the Bombay High Court on 29th July, 2009. The said Writ Petition was listed before the Bombay High Court on 25th August, 2009, which dismissed the same on 10th March, 2010, relying solely on the provisions of Clause 8.31 of the Licence Agreement, which disqualified the appellant from participating in the Tender process relating to the Third Container Terminal. 17

16. It is the said order of the High Court which has been challenged in this appeal.


17. Appearing for the appellant, Mr. F.S. Nariman, Senior Advocate, submitted that JNPT had awarded NSICT, owned by P&O Ports, the licence for the development of the First Container Terminal at JNPT. Pursuant thereto, JNPT had entered into a Licence Agreement dated 3rd July, 1997, with NSICT, wherein Clause 2.3, which provided that the said licence would not bar the licensee from participating in any subsequent bids invited by the licensor for operation of the container terminal, was incorporated. Mr. Nariman submitted that despite the 1996 Policy, which aimed at preventing monopoly and promoting competition, the Licence Agreement dated 3rd July, 1997, permitted NSICT to participate in the subsequent bids invited by the JNPT for operation of the Container Terminal. 18

18. Mr. Nariman submitted that on 26th September, 2007, the Union of India issued Circular No. PD-12013/2/2005-JNPT to JNPT indicating that it should invite global competitive bidding for an independent, Stand Alone Container Terminal involving a 330 meter extension of container berth towards the North of JNPT. The said Circular clarified that existing private Container Terminal Operators in JNPT would also be entitled to bid for any project but the JNPT was required to ensure that private investment did not result in the creation of private monopoly and that private facilities were available to all users on equal and competitive terms. Paragraph 5 of the 2007 Policy clearly provided that the successful bidder of the previous Container Terminal on BOT basis and/or their subsidiaries/allied organizations, should be excluded from bidding for the 330 meter extension project. The immediate fall-out of the same would mean that for the next BOT Container Terminal in JN 19 Port in future, the successful bidder of the 330 meter extension project would be excluded and so on. What was also emphatically stated in paragraph 6 is that it had also been decided that the aforesaid guideline should be followed in all Ports in its true spirit with a view to avoiding monopoly and promoting competition, till such time a formal policy was finalized and notified. The 2007 Policy, therefore, provided that MAERSK S/T CONCOR Consortium and/or their subsidiary/allied organizations would be excluded from bidding for the Third Container Terminal and the successful bidder of the Third Container Terminal would be excluded from bidding for the next project and so on. Hence, a successful bidder would be ineligible to bid for the next but one subsequent tender after the immediate one awarded to it.

19. Mr. Nariman submitted that in accordance with the guidelines contained in the 2007 Policy, the 20 appellant was specifically barred from participating in the tender process for the development of the Third Container Terminal at JNPT. NSICT who was the successful bidder for the first container was allowed to participate in the tender process for the development of the Third Container Terminal at JNPT, though the said tender is yet to be finalised.


20. Certain problems arose when on 2nd March, 2009, JNPT floated Tender No. PPD/M-1/4TH CT/C-60/2009 and issued a global invitation for Request for Qualification for development of the Fourth Container Terminal at JNPT, which contained a clause to the effect that the successful bidder/consortium members and/or their subsidiaries/allied organizations in the project for the development of a "Stand Alone Container handling facility with a Quay length of 330 meter towards North at JNPT should be excluded from the 21 bidding for the development of the Fourth Container Terminal either as a single applicant or as a Consortium.


21. Mr. Nariman submitted that the Request for Qualification excludes only the successful bidder for the Third Container Terminal (which is yet to be awarded) from bidding at the tender for the development of the Fourth Container Terminal. Consequently, the appellant and/or its Associate Company/allied organizations and/or consortium of GTI were not precluded from participating in the tender for the development of the Fourth Container Terminal having been precluded from bidding for the "Stand Alone" Container Terminal, in accordance with the 2007 Policy. It was at this stage that JNPT wrote to the appellant on 29th June, 2009, indicating that it has been decided not to allow GTI Pvt. Ltd. and/or its 22 associates to participate in the bidding for the Fourth Container Terminal. Mr. Nariman further submitted that inspite of the decision in NSICT's case, wherein the Union of India had relied on the 1996 Policy, it subsequently changed its stand on the strength of the 2007 Policy indicating that having regard to Clause 8.31 of the Agreement the appellant was barred from bidding for the Fourth Container Terminal.

22. It was submitted that the stand of JNPT was clearly wrong, arbitrary and discriminatory. It was further submitted that the apprehension of the JNPT in regard to creation of monopoly was erroneous and unrealistic since monopoly means the power to determine one's own prices. In the case of Ports, the prices for various Port Services are determined by the Tariff Authority for the Major Ports (TAMP) and periodically operators are required to submit 23 their proposed prices to TAMP and cannot charge more than the TAMP approved prices for any of their services. It was urged that without the power to fix one's own price, the question of monopoly did not arise.

23. Mr. Nariman submitted that the problem has arisen on account of the fact that the tender for the Third Container Terminal is yet to be finalised, and, in the meantime the tender for the Fourth Container Terminal was floated. Consequently, the Fourth tender was treated by the concerned Respondents to be the tender for the Third Container Terminal which meant that the appellant Company stood disqualified from participating in the said tender also, since under the 2007 Policy it could only participate in the next but one subsequent tender after the one awarded to it, thereby suffering double prejudice on account of no fault on its part. Mr. Nariman 24 submitted that to debar the appellant Company from participating in both the Third as well as the Fourth Container Terminals was not justified and it should be allowed to participate in the Fourth tender in accordance with Clause 2.3 of its Licence Agreement. Furthermore, if the stand taken on behalf of the Respondent was to be accepted, despite the supersession of the 1996 Policy by the 2007 Policy, the appellant would also be barred from participating in future tenders for 30 years by virtue of Clause 8.31 of the Licence Agreement, which would only have the effect of reducing the extent of competition which is, in fact, the object of the 2007 Policy of the Union of India.

24. Mr. Nariman also contended that Clause 8.31 of the Licence Agreement had been imposed upon the appellant based on the principles of public policy and keeping in mind the then prevailing Policy of the Government of India, i.e., the 1996 Policy and 25 not out of the free will of the parties. In any event, Clause 8.31 of the Licence Agreement would have to be read with the 2007 Policy and could not be read in isolation.

25. Mr. Nariman urged that when the tender for the Second Container Terminal was floated by the Respondent No.2, it relied heavily on the 1996 Policy to prevent NSICT from bidding at the said tender. When NSICT challenged the said decision by filing a writ petition in the Bombay High Court, the Respondents successfully urged before the Court in the said Writ Petition that the 1996 Policy would prevail over Clause 2.3 of the NSICT contract. On the other hand, as stated hereinbefore, in Writ Petition No.1551 of 2009 filed by the appellant, the Respondents took a contrary stand by contending that Clause 8.31 of the Licence Agreement would prevail over the 2007 Policy. 26

26. Mr. Nariman lastly contended that by allowing the appellant to raise the technical bid and to participate in the pre-bid meeting for the development of the Fourth Container Terminal, the Respondents had given the appellant cause for legitimate expectation of being eligible to bid for and be awarded the contract. Mr. Nariman submitted that the Respondents had acted in a manner engineered to preclude the appellant from participating in the tender for the development of the Fourth Container Terminal at JNPT.

27. Appearing for the Petitioner, PSA Sical Terminals Ltd., in Transferred Case Nos.36-37 of 2010, learned Senior Counsel, Ms. Nalini Chidambaram urged that, although, there was a good deal of similarity in the issues raised in the Special Leave Petition filed by APM Terminals B.V. and the Transferred Cases filed by PSA Sical Terminals Ltd., the substantial question in the 27 Transferred cases was whether a contractual right could be superseded by a general policy decision under Section 111 of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963, without any legislation. In other words, in the facts of this case, could the Petitioner with whom a Licence Agreement had been signed on 15th July, 1998, by the Respondent No.2, Tuticorin Port Trust, with the previous sanction of the Central Government under Section 42(3) of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963, be prevented from participating in the tender for additional facilities in the Tuticorin Port, by virtue of a policy decision taken in the teeth of the provisions of the Licence Agreement which vested the Licensee with the right to participate in future tenders.

28. Ms. Chidambaram urged that after the policy of liberalization adopted by the Central Government, the Port Trusts permitted private operators to operate Container Terminals on a Build, Operate and 28 Transfer basis, through a process of tender. PSA Sical participated in the Tender invited by the Tuticorin Port Trust in 1997 for operating the Seventh Berth at Tuticorin, which was the First Container Terminal and was granted licence to operate the said Berth for 30 years. During the subsistence of the guidelines issued by the Government of India on 28th October, 1996, the Tuticorin Port Trust entered into a Licence Agreement with the Petitioner on 15th July, 1998, to operate the Seventh berth and specifically granting a right to the Petitioner to participate in any subsequent bids invited by the said Trust for operation of additional facilities in the same port under Clauses 2.3 and 6.2.3 of the Licence Agreement. For the sake of convenience, the said two clauses in the Licence Agreement are reproduced hereinbelow :

"2.3 License Period 29 The Licence Period shall be for the period of 30 years (including the time taken for the erection of container handling equipments at the Container Terminal) commencing from the Date of Award of License.

The license will not bar the licensee from participating in any subsequent bids invited by the licensor for development, designing, engineering, constructing, equipping, maintaining and operating any berth or related facility at the port".

"6.2.3 The Licensor agrees that it shall not commission additional berths for handling containers until the traffic potential does not appear to exceed 90% of the maximum volume 1, 25,000 TEUs. Provided however that the Licensor shall always consider future expansions of the container berths to reasonably match the market demands and allow the Licensee to participate in its operation without any discrimination. This condition shall be applicable only within the port limits of the Licensor as notified under Indian Ports Act, 1908 and Major Port Trusts Act, 1963."

29. Ms. Chidambaram submitted that it would, therefore, be evident from the above clauses that notwithstanding the 1996 guidelines, while 30 executing the Licence Agreement, the Tuticorin Port Trust consciously granted the Petitioner a specific right to bid in Tenders for future development in the same port and did not consider that the same would result in the creation of a private monopoly.

30. It was submitted that at about the same time, the issue relating to the disqualification of Nhava Sheva International Container Terminal (NSICT), which was operating the Container Terminal at the JNPT and its Associate or interconnected or sister companies, including P&O Ports, from participating in the bid for the re-development of the Bulk Terminal into a Container Terminal at JNPT was taken up for consideration by the Bombay High Court. In the said matter, the JNPT took the stand that since P&O Ports was controlling 48% of the Container traffic in India and was operating the existing private Container Terminals at Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust and Chennai, a policy 31 decision had been taken by the Port Trusts of the JNPT to debar an existing operator from bidding for the next Container Terminal with the object of avoiding concentration of control in one party and to increase competition and efficiency in the public interest. The said proposal was forwarded to the Central Government which approved the same vide its letter dated 11th November, 2002.

31. Ms. Chidambaram submitted that since P&O Ports and its associates were controlling 48% of the Container business in India, the Bombay High Court upheld the policy of the Central Government aimed at preventing monopolisation of the container business in India by a private party. Ms. Chidambaram submitted that the appeal filed by P&O Ports before this Court was also dismissed, with this Court upholding the comprehensive guidelines that were issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Surface Transport on 26th October, 1996. 32 Ms. Chidambaram, however, urged that the P&O Ports' case was decided on facts which were specific to P&O Ports and could not, therefore, be treated as a precedent for the Petitioner's case. However, the question as to whether a policy decision could supersede the contractual right was not considered by the Bombay High Court or by this Court.

32. Ms. Chidambaram submitted that on 31st May, 2005, the Tuticorin Port Trust invited Tenders for development of Berth No.8 into a Container Terminal and permitted the Petitioner to participate in the tender process. The tender process remained incomplete for over four years and in 2007 a draft policy was formulated to promote inter port and intra port competition in which it was stipulated as follows :- "Wherever the second terminal is to be set up at the same major port, or first terminal in an adjacent major port e.g. JN Port and Mumbai, Chennai and Ennore Ports, the existing terminal operator would be 33 excluded to ensure competition. If there are a minimum of two private operators in any major port, no restriction would be placed on the existing operators to bid for the subsequent terminal, subject to the condition that a single private operator will not be allowed to operate more than two terminals at the same Major Port including terminals at adjacent major port."


33. Further to the aforesaid approved policy, the Government of India wrote to the Tuticorin Port Trust that it had been decided to debar the existing operator, the Petitioner herein, who was operating the first Private Terminal, from the bidding process for the second Container Terminal at Tuticorin Port in line with the aforesaid policy decision. The Petitioner was, therefore, denied permission from further participation in the tender for the 8th Berth on account of the aforesaid policy, notwithstanding the specific provision in the Licence Agreement permitting the Petitioner to participate in subsequent Tenders. 34

34. The Petitioner challenged the aforesaid decision denying permission to the Petitioner from participating in the bid for the 8th Berth in Writ Petition No.9746 of 2009. The learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition relying on the decision in the P&O Ports case. In the Writ Appeal No.996 of 2009 filed by the Petitioner against the decision of the learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court, it was submitted on behalf of the Union of India that the need for having a second Private Container Terminal had been reassessed and that it had been decided to scrap the project at the RFP stage itself. The Petitioner's writ appeal was, therefore, dismissed as infructuous.

35. Subsequently, the Union of India issued a new policy guideline under Section 111 of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963, on 2nd August, 2010, and immediately thereafter on 4th August, 2010, the Tuticorin Port Trust floated re-tender for the 8th 35 Berth and restrained the Petitioner from participating therein in keeping with the new policy guidelines. Ms. Chidambaram submitted that the 2010 Policy provided that if there was one private Container/Berth Operator in a Port for a specific cargo, the Operator of that Berth or his Associates would not be allowed to bid for the next Terminal/Berth for handling the same cargo in the same Port. Ms. Chidambaram submitted that the Petitioner was informed of the said decision of the Tuticorin Port Trust by its letter dated 21st August, 2010.


36. Aggrieved by the aforesaid decision to debar the Petitioner from participating in the bidding process for the 8th Berth/Container Terminal, the Petitioner filed Writ Petition Nos.19384 of 2010 and 19851 of 2010, inter alia, for a direction upon the Respondents to permit the Petitioner to participate in the bid process for the development 36 of the 8th Berth at Tuticorin Port as a Container Terminal and for a further direction upon the authorities of the Tuticorin Port Trust to provide the Request for Qualification documents and to quash the decision not to provide the same.

37. In the background of the aforesaid facts, Ms. Chidambaram contended that a right given to a contractor could be nullified only by a legislation specifically indicating that the agreement stood nullified and not by a general policy decision. Ms. Chidambaram submitted that while the 1996 Policy categorically indicated that the Port should ensure that private investment did not result in the creation of private monopolies, in the Licence Agreement with the petitioner Clauses 2.3 and 6.2.3 were included giving the Petitioner a right to participate in the bid for additional Container Terminals in the same Port. 37

38. Ms. Chidambaram submitted that a draft Policy was prepared by the Central Government on 10th February, 2005, to promote inter port and intra port competition, but the said Policy was never notified and remained a draft. However, based on the draft Policy, the Tuticorin Port Trust invited tenders for the 8th Berth/Container Terminal at Tuticorin and allowed the Petitioner to participate in the tender process for about 3 years until it suddenly took a unilateral decision to debar the Petitioner from the bidding process on the strength of a communication received from the Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Shipping, dated 22nd May, 2009. Ms. Chidambaram submitted that in between the aforesaid decision by which the Petitioner was debarred from participating in the bidding for the 8th Berth/Container Terminal at Tuticorin, the Vizag Port on 5th June, 2008, took a decision to shortlist the existing BOT Operators while recording that the same should not be taken as a precedent. 38

39. Ms. Chidambaram submitted that it was unreasonable on the part of the Respondents to debar the Petitioner from participating in the 8th Berth/Container Terminal without formalising a formal policy with regard to the intention of promoting competition and avoiding monopoly. It was also urged that P&O Ports, which had earlier been debarred from participating in the bidding for the Second Container Terminal at the JNPT, was allowed to participate in the bid for the Third Container Terminal, although the P&O Ports and its Associates were controlling 48% of the Container Terminal business in India and by allowing it to participate in the Third Tender, the Central Government was, in fact, going back on its desire to eliminate monopoly by private Operators within the Indian Ports.


40. Ms. Chidambaram urged that it would be apparent from the changing policies adopted by the Central 39 Government that they were made to suit a particular situation and possibly a particular tenderer. It was submitted that even though the First Respondent was entitled to change its policies from time to time, such changes had to be informed by reason, which was absent in the instant case. Ms. Chidambaram added that the decision in the P&O Ports' case could not be taken to be a precedent as far as the Petitioner, PSA Sical Terminals Ltd., was concerned, since P&O Ports was not a party to the Licence Agreement at JNP and had no contractual right to bid for the Second Container Terminal there. Although, NSICT had such a right in view of Clause 2.3 of its Licence Agreement to bid for Container Terminal No.7, it did not assert its right and the same was not also considered in the judgment delivered by the High Court.

41. In support of her submissions, Ms. Chidambaram first referred to the decision of this Court in 40 State Electricity Board [(1986) 2 SCC 431], wherein the High Court had quashed the decision of the Rajasthan Electricity Board to charge uniform tariff despite the prevailing concessional rates granted to a consumer under an agreement, upon holding that only a legislative amendment could override a contractual right by specifically overriding the contractual terms. Ms. Chidambaram also referred to the decision of this Court in PTC Commission [(2010) 4 SCC 603], wherein, in the context of determination of tariff under the Electricity Act, 2003, this Court held that the making of a Regulation under Section 178 of the Act became necessary because a Regulation made under Section 178 had the effect of interfering with and overriding the existing contractual relationship between the regulated entities. This Court held that a Regulation under Section 178 is in the 41 nature of subordinate legislation which could even override the existing contracts, including Power Purchase Agreements, which had to be aligned with a Regulation under Section 178 and could not have been done only on the basis of an order of the Central Commission.

42. Ms. Chidambaram reiterated that while the Central Government was entitled to alter its policies regarding participation of candidates in the bid process for the Second Container Terminal at the Tuticorin Port, such alteration would have to be informed by reason and not on the whims of the authorities, which is so apparent in the facts of the present case. Accordingly, in the absence of a formal policy regarding the participation of candidates in the bid process for the Second Container Terminal of the Tuticorin Port Trust and, in particular, the Petitioner, which was covered by Clause 2.3 of the Licence Agreement, the Petitioner 42 could not have been barred from participating in the tender process for being awarded the contract for the Second Container Terminal at Tuticorin Port. Ms. Chidambaram submitted that the decision of the Tuticorin Port Trust Authorities to debar the Petitioner from participating in the tender process suffered from the view of Wadnesbury unreasonableness and was liable to be quashed.

43. The learned Solicitor General, Mr. Gopal Subramaniam, appearing for the Union of India in both the matters, submitted that the case of the appellant, APM Terminals B.V., and that of the Petitioner, PSA Sical Terminals Ltd., stand on a similar footing, despite Ms. Chidambaram's efforts to prove otherwise. The learned Solicitor General submitted that the same policy decisions taken by the Central Government in regard to private participation in the development and operation of Container Terminals in the Major Indian Ports 43 governed both the cases, though at different ports. The learned Solicitor General submitted that on 26th October, 1996, the Union of India issued guidelines for all Major Port Trusts regarding private sector participation in the major ports. In the preamble of the said guidelines it was indicated that in order to improve efficiency, productivity and quality of service, as well as to bring in competitiveness in port service, it had been decided to throw open the port sector to private sector participation. It was, however, made clear in Clause 4 of the policy statement that ports would have to ensure that private investment did not result in the creation of private monopolies and that private facilities were available to all users on equal and competitive terms.


44. Pursuant to the said policy decision, the JNPT decided to convert the Bulk Terminal which had been commissioned on 26th May, 1989, and had been 44 designed to handle imported fertilizers, fertilizer raw materials and food grains through mechanized bulk handling facilities, into a Container Terminal on Build, Operate and Transfer (BOT) basis on licence for a period of 30 years. Tenders were invited and, ultimately, NSICT proved successful and was granted such licence by the JNPT for the First Container Terminal. The learned Solicitor General submitted that at the said point of time, Clause 2.3 was included in the Licence Agreement which provided that the Licence Agreement to NSICT would not prevent it from participating in any subsequent bid invited by JNPT for operation of Container Terminals. However, in order to give effect to its policy decision to prevent private monopolisation, the JNPT floated another Tender on 28th October, 2002, for construction of a Second Container Terminal in which Clause 1.3 of the Tender documents provided that JNPT was desirous of entrusting the project to another Licensee other 45 than the existing Licensee at JNPT or its associates and interconnected or sister companies. The learned Solicitor General submitted that in the said process, GTI, a Joint Venture Company of APM Terminals and CONCOR proved to be the successful bidder.


45. Mr. Subramaniam also indicated that Clause 1.3, referred to hereinabove, was challenged by NSICT in Writ Petition No.3083 of 2002, before the Bombay High Court which dismissed the same and upheld the decision to exclude NSICT. The said decision of the Bombay High Court was also upheld by this Court.

46. The learned Solicitor General submitted that in the agreement entered into with GTI it was specifically mentioned in Clause 8.3 that the Licensee would forego the right to bid for, either directly or indirectly, the additional facilities or existing facilities, during the term of the 46 agreement. It was submitted that certain other conditions were also stipulated in the said clause which were aimed at preventing private monopolisation of the facilities of the port.


47. The learned Solicitor General submitted that in keeping with its aforesaid policy decision, while allowing the JNPT to invite Global Tenders for a "Stand Alone" project, the Central Government reminded JNPT of the Government policy formulated in October, 1996, to ensure that private investment did not create private monopolies. It was also clarified that the policy adopted to exclude the existing container operator from the tender for the next container, would continue till such time a formal policy was finalised and notified. It was submitted that in the light of such decision, a Global invitation was issued by JNPT on 2nd March, 2009, for development of the Fourth Container Terminal at JNPT, and those who had been permitted 47 to participate for the Third Container Berths were excluded. The learned Solicitor General submitted that it was only a question of fortuitous circumstances which resulted in the tender for the Third Container Terminal remaining unfinalised. Since GTI had been granted licence for the Second Container Terminal, it was only in keeping with the policy decision of the Respondents that the appellant, APM Terminals B.V., was barred from participating in the Tender for the Third Container Terminal and was allowed to participate in the bid for the Fourth Container Terminal. If the Tender process for the Third Container Terminal had been concluded, the present situation would not have arisen. It is only because of the fact that the Tender for the Third Container Terminal could not be concluded that the Tender for the Fourth Container Terminal was treated to be the Tender for the Third Container Terminal and as a result, the appellant stood disqualified. 48

48. The learned Solicitor General submitted that the Central Government was only following its decision to ensure healthy competition and to prevent the concentration of control of the Major Port Trusts in the hands of the private sector which could result in unintended discrimination, since the private operators had been given the right to give priority berthing to their own ships and other ships could be serviced on a `First come First served' basis.

49. Countering the submissions made by Mr. Nariman and Ms. Chidambaram regarding the doctrine of legitimate expectation and the right of the Government to alter its policy, the learned Solicitor General referred to the decision of this India & Ors. [(1999) 4 SCC 727], wherein, it was held that a change in policy could defeat a substantive legitimate expectation if it could be 49 justified on Wednesbury reasonableness. The learned Solicitor General, therefore, submitted that the decision taken by the Government to prevent private monopoly in the handling of port activities was fully justified and could have an overriding effect over contractual terms arrived at by the Government with a private party.


50. On behalf of the JNPT, it was submitted by Mr. Vikas Singh, learned Senior Advocate, that the challenge thrown to the order passed by the Bombay High Court, upholding the decision of JNPT to exclude the appellant from participating in any Tender for development of the port facilities for a period of 30 years from the date of signing of the agreement, was fully justified. Mr. Vikas Singh submitted that in view of Clause 8.3.1 of the Agreement entered into between JNPT and the appellant, it was not open to the appellant to resile from the same. Furthermore, global tenders 50 had been invited for the construction of the Fourth Container facility on 2nd March, 2009 and as per the said agreement, the appellant remained ineligible to participate in the said Tender also. Mr. Vikas Singh submitted that it is no doubt true that originally the appellant was provided with RFQ documents, but subsequently it was informed that in view of Clause 8.3.1 in its Agreement dated 10th August, 2004, it was not entitled to participate in the tender process for the Fourth Container facility.


51. While adopting the submissions made by the learned Solicitor General, Mr. Vikas Singh also submitted that since the Tender for the Third Container facility had not been proceeded with, the Tender for the Fourth Container Terminal would be treated to be the Tender for the Third Container Terminal from which the appellant and its 51 associates stood excluded on account of the existing policy dated 26th September, 2007.

52. Mr. Vikas Singh submitted that while deciding the Writ Petition filed by NSICT, neither the Bombay High Court nor this Court had the benefit of the subsequent Constitution Bench decision of this Regulatory Commission [(2010) 4 SCC 603], in which this court had held that "regulatory intervention into the existing contracts across-the-board could have been done only by making Regulations under Section 178 and not by passing an Order under Section 79(1)(j) of the 2003 Act". Mr. Vikas Singh submitted that the appeal filed by APM Terminals B.V. was without merit and was liable to be dismissed.


53. We have carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties and are ad idem with the learned Solicitor General that the 52 appeals and the Transferred Cases raise the same issue and the only difference between the two is that the appellant had not referred to or sought the benefit of Clause 2.3 of its agreement, which permitted it to participate in future tenders in relation to development work within the port area, while in the petitioner's case the same formed the main plank of its claim. In substance, the question that we are faced with is whether despite the contractual right vested in the appellant as well as in the petitioner in the Transferred cases to participate in future tender processes for developmental work within the port area, such right could be taken away and/or curtailed by a unilateral policy decision of the Central Government. The further question in the case of the appellant is whether having been debarred from participating in the bid for the Third Container Terminal in JNPT, it could also be excluded from the bidding process of the Fourth Container 53 Terminal.

54. Both the Bombay High Court as well as this Court have held that in public interest it was open to the Government to alter its policies in order to subserve the common good and that contractual rights would have to give way to the greater public interest, which in this case was to prevent the creation of private monopolies in the management of port facilities in the Major Ports in the country, as this could have far-reaching and disastrous consequences as far as shipping in such ports was concerned. As already indicated hereinabove, the policy decision of 26th October, 1996, made provision for privatisation and also gave private operators the right to give priority berthing to their own ships. The said decision had the potential of substantially disrupting the schedule of other ships intending to use the port facilities and could discourage foreign ships from coming to 54 Indian Ports and thereby disturb the very pattern of the shipping trade in India.


55. While disposing of Writ Petition No.8083 of 2002, filed by P&O Australia Ports Pty. Limited against the Board of Trustees of JNPT, the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court examined the question raised herein at length. It found that the appellants were handling container terminals in Karachi and Sri Lanka and also at JNP and Chennai, thereby exercising control over 48% of the container traffic in India. The High Court held that the two existing terminals at JNP and Chennai are the biggest container terminals in the country and if the appellant and the petitioner in the Transferred Cases were permitted to operate the new container terminals also, they would have virtual monopoly of the container traffic in the entire country which would not be in the public interest. 55

56. The High Court also took note of the fact that certain shipping agents and their associates had expressed concern regarding the increased tariff charged by the appellant at its container terminals at JNP and the possibility of a monopoly being created by it in the country. The High Court took note of the fact that port authorities all over the world had woken up to the possibility of private monopolies controlling the use of port facilities in such a manner so as to benefit their own ships to the detriment of world-wide shipping as a whole. The High Court took note of the fact that P&O Ports itself had been excluded from bidding for the Third Container Terminal in the Port of Melbourne on the ground that it would give the said operator a position of dominance which was to be avoided in the interest of the shipping industry at large. Two other examples of Port Klang in Malaysia and Bhabange Port in Thailand, were also taken note of by the Bombay High Court where different 56 independent operators were appointed to promote competition.


57. It is precisely for such reason that it had become necessary for the Central Government to alter its policy decision regarding entrusting control of the container terminals in the major ports of India in a manner so as to eliminate monopolisation and to encourage competition. The decision of the High Court was duly endorsed by this Court in SLP(C)No.7488 of 2003 and it was observed that the High Court had rightly dismissed the writ petition.

58. Insofar as the decision taken by the Central Government to alter its policy regarding the grant of licence for operating the container terminals in the Major Ports in India as against the contractual right embodied in the form of Clause 2.3 in the agreements executed or entered into between the Central Government and the appellant and the 57 petitioner in the Transferred Cases, is concerned, the said controversy is no longer valid in regard to the appellant, since such point had not been taken on its behalf in the writ petition before the Bombay High Court. However, the same has been taken as a specific point on behalf of the petitioner in the Transferred Cases as far as the Tenders for the Second Container Terminal at the Tuticorin Port are concerned. The said question has to be considered in the light of Article 14 of the Constitution and the greater public interest as against the contractual right of the individual.


59. The provisions of Clause 2.3 in the Agreements signed between the Tuticorin Port Trust and PSA Sical cannot be read in isolation of the other provisions in the agreement which prevented the Licensee from bidding for other work within the port area during the period of the licence. In fact, in our view, the change in policy to prevent 58 private mobilization has been held to be justified by the Bombay High Court as well as this Court. In the absence of any arbitrariness in effecting such change in policy and keeping in mind the larger public interest, we are of the view, that the Central Government was within its powers to strike a balance with regard to the control of the port facilities so that the same did not come to be concentrated in the hands of one private group or consortium which would be in a dominant position to control not only the rights of tariff, but also the entry of ships, not belonging to such group, into the Major Ports and thereby give an undue advantage to its own ships over other shipping agencies.


60. Normally, the Courts do not interfere with policy decisions of the Government unless they are arbitrary or offend any of the provisions of the Constitution. In the present cases, the adoption of such a course would, in our view, be apposite.

59

61. It has been the consistent view of this Court that a change in policy by the Government can have an overriding effect over private treaties between the Government and a private party, if the same was in the general public interest and provided such change in policy was guided by reason. Several decisions have been cited by the parties in this regard in the context of preventing private manopolisation of port activities to an extent where such private player would assume a dominant position which would enable them to control not only the berthing of ships but the tariff for use of the port facilities. In both the cases under consideration, the same set of entrepreneurs are interested in gaining control over the different container terminals to the exclusion of other players. The Central Government in its Ministry of Shipping and Transport, therefore, took a decision not to permit licensees who have been granted a licence for running one of the container terminal 60 berths from participating in the bid process for the immediate next container terminal, with the intention of promoting healthy competition for the benefit of the shipping industry and the ports in India as well. The decision to alter its policy is based on sound reasoning and the Central Government has taken such decision for the benefit of the consumers as a whole. The changed policy would also have the effect of preventing cartelisation and dominant status, which could inevitably affect the ultimate pricing of consumer goods within the country. As was held in Shimnit Utsch India Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited and Ors. [(2010) 6 SCC 303], the Government was entitled to change its policies with changing circumstances and only on grounds of change a policy does not stand vitiated. 61

62. It was further held that Government has the discretion to adopt a different policy, alter or change its policy to make it more effective. The only qualifying condition is that such change in policy must be free from arbitrariness, irrationality, bias and malice and must be in conformity with the principle of Wednesbury reasonableness. Although, it has been urged by Ms. Chidambaram that such change in policy could be effected only by way of legislation, such a submission, if accepted, could stultify the powers of the Central Government to alter its policies with changing circumstances for the benefit of the public at large. It is not as if the right of a licensee to bid for a further container terminal berth has been excluded for the entire period of the Licence Agreement but in order to ensure proper competition and participation by all intending tenderers, the said policy has also been altered to 62 enable such licensees to bid for the next but one tender as and when invited.


63. However, as far as the appellant is concerned, it is because of certain fortuitous circumstances that it came to be excluded from the tender process for the Fourth Container Terminal. If the tender process for the Third Container Terminal had been concluded, the various complications could have been avoided since under the revised policy, the appellant was entitled to participate in the alternate bids. The appellant having been excluded from one bid on the basis of an existing policy, cannot be debarred from participating in the next bid, by taking recourse to a different yardstick. Such a course of action would be contrary to public policy. Accordingly, the authorities of the JNPT shall allow the appellant to continue to participate in the tender process for the Fourth Container Terminal and the decision to the contrary 63 conveyed to the appellant on 29th June, 2009, is quashed.


64. As far as PSA Sical Terminals Ltd. is concerned, Ms. Chidambaram's submission as to the applicability of the doctrine of legitimate expectation is at best an expectation if there are cogent grounds to deny the same. The said doctrine has been explained by this Court in Sethi Auto [(2009) 1 SCC 180], and it was held that the appellant in the said case had certain expectations which were duly considered and favourable recommendations had also been made, but the final decision-making authority considered the matter when the policy had undergone a change and the cases of the appellants therein did not meet the new criteria for allotment laid down in the new policy. It was also observed that the concept of legitimate expectation has no role to play where 64 State action is based on public policy and in the public interest, unless the action taken amounted to an abuse of power.


65. As we have indicated earlier, the Central Government was within its powers to adopt a policy to prevent the port facilities from being concentrated in the hands of one private group or consortium which could have complete control over the use of the facilities of the ports to the detriment of the shipping industry as a whole. The decision taken by the Tuticorin Port Trust Authorities to exclude PSA Sical Terminals Ltd. from bidding for the 8th Berth Container Terminal cannot, therefore, be said to be arbitrary or unreasonable so as to warrant interference. In fact, the position of PSA Sical Terminals Ltd. is no different from that of A.P.M. Terminals B.V. which had been excluded from the bid for the Third Container Terminal at JNPT.

65

66. In the aforesaid circumstances, the appeal filed by APM Terminals BV is allowed and the decision of the Bombay High Court is set aside. However, we are also of the view that the decision of the Madras High Court does not call for any interference and the Transfer Cases filed by PSA Sical Terminals Limited are accordingly dismissed, but without any order as to costs.

66. All interim orders are vacated.

......................................................J.

(ALTAMAS KABIR) ......................................................J.