THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: EXTRAORDINARY

[PARI III—SEC. 4]

TARIFF AUTHORITY FOR MAJOR PORTS

NOTIFICATION

New Delhi, the 27th September, 2002

No.TAMP/60/2002-KPT.— In compliance of a direction 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 representation made

by M/s. Maheshwari Handling Agencies Pvt. Ltd. against the excess recovery of storage/rental charges by the Kandia

Port Trust as in the Order appended hereto.

SCHEDULE

Case No. TAMP/60/2002-KPT

M/s. Maheshwari Handling Agencies Pvt. Ltd.

—

Applicant

The Kandia Port Trust

—

Respondent

ORDER

(Passed on this 20th day of September 2002)

This case relates to a representation made by M/s. Maheshwari Handling Agencies Pvt, Ltd. against the excess

recovery of storage/rental charges by the Kandia Port Trust,

2.1. So far, the regulatory intervention of this Authority 'to frame Scale of Rates' has been taken to encompass the

following routes:

(i)

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.

(iii)

Initiation of action suo motu.

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 the greatest number

of interested parties.

3. The representation in reference was registered as a tariff case and processed further following the consultative

procedure prescribed.

4. Before this case could bo taken up for final consideration, the Government of India (in the Ministry of Shipping)

vide its communication No.PR-14019/36/2001-PG dated 9 September, 2002 has issued a 'policy direction' to this 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 covers 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 ofthe provisions of Section 111 oftheMPTAct, this 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 take 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

[ADVTHI/IV/143/2002/Exty. ]

Printed by Ihe Manager, flovt. of India Press, Ring Rond. Mayapuri, New Dellii-110064

and Published by the Controller of Publications, Dclhl-1100.^4.