REGD. NO. D. L.-33004/99
The Gazette of India
EXTRAORDINARY
PART III—Section 4
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
No. 216 ]
NEW DELHI, FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 2002/ASVTNA 5, 1924
3049 GI/2002
(I)
2_
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: EXTRAORDINARY
[PART III—SEC. 41
TARIFF AUTHORITY FOR MAJOR PORTS
NOTIFICATION
New Delhi, the 27th September, 2002
No.TAMP/72/2002-JJVPT.— In compliance of a direction issued by the Government of India under Sectibn 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. Bharat Shell Limited against the way leave charges claimed by trie Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust as in the Order
appended hereto.
SCHEDULE
Case No. TAMP/72/2002-JNPT
M/s. Bharat Shell Limited
Applicant
Vs
The Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust
Respondent
ORDER
(Passed on this 20th day of September, 2002)
This case relates to a representation made by M/s. Bharat Shell Limited against the way leave charges claimed by
the Jawaharlal Nehru 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 suomotu.
2.2. It is noteworthy that the Transaction of Business Regulations of tliis Authority have also buen 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 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 this Author-
ity 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
policy1 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, 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
fADVT I! I/I V/l 43/2C02/E xty.}
Printed by the Manager, Govt. of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapurl, New Dclhi-110064
and Published by (he Controller of Publications, Dclhi-110054.