The Gazette of India
EXTRAORDINARY
PART III—Section 4
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
No. 205 ] NEW DELHI, FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 2002/ASVINA5,1924 2 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA. EXTRAORDINARY J P AR r III—SEC. 4]
TARIFF AUTHORITY FOR MAJOR PORTS
NOTIFICATION
New Delhi, flic 27th September, 2002
No.TAMP/42/2002-KOPT.— In compliance of adirection issued by the Government of India under Section 111 of the Major Port Trusts Act, the Tariff Authority for Major Ports hereby closes the case relating to the'represcntation made by M/s. Manor Floatel Limited against the lease rent levied by the Kolkata Port Trust for land and water front allotted for setting up a floating hotel as in the Order appended hereto
SCHEDULE
Case No. TAMP/42/2002-KOPT
M/s Manor Floatel Limited
Applicant
Vs
The Kolkata Port Trust
Respondent
ORDER
(Passed on this 20th day of September, 2002)
This case relates to a representation made by M/s, Manor Floatel Limited against the' lease rent levied by the Kolkata Port Trust for land and walcr front allotted for setting up a floating hotel,
2.1 So far, the regulatory intervention of this Authority 'to frame Scale of Rates' has been taken to encompass the following routes:
0) Consideration of a 'proposal' received from a Port Trust/Private Terminal.
(ii) Consideration of a 'representation' received from a port user or a representative body of port users.
(m) Initiation of action suo matu,
2.2. It is noteworthy that the Transaction of Business Regulations of this Authority have also been framed accordingly with an emphasis on a consultative process to promote participation in the proceedings of fhegreatcst number of interested parties
3 The representation m reference was registered as a tariff case and processed further following the consultative procedure prescribed A port level joint hearing was also set up to give an opportunity of hearing to all concerned.
4. Before this case could be taken up for final consideration, the Government of India (in the Ministry of Shipping) vide its communication No PR-14019/36/2001-PG dated 9th September, 2002 has issued a 'policy direction' to tins Authority under Section 111 of the MPT Act to refrain in future from entertaining representations made by individual parties, as this Authority has no power of adjudication in individual cases under the provisions of the MPT Act. This direction has been issued despite this Authority's argument that the scope of Section 111 ibid cove.rs-isSue of directions on 'question of policy' and any dispute about jurisdiction can only be seen to be a legal issue having no scope for resolution through a policy direction.
5. In terms of the provisions of Section 111 of the MPT Act, tlus Authority is bound by the directions on questions of policy given by the Central Government.
6. For the reasons given above, this Authority is unable to lake up the representation in reference for final consideration. In the result, the case in reference is closed, as directed by the Government, for want of jurisdiction.
S SATHYAM, Chairman
[ADVT IMV/143/2O02/Exty.]