JUDGMENT
1. Heard learned counsel on all sides.
2. For the reasons briefly indicated hereinafter, the writ petition is summarily dismissed.
3. Sometime in the year 1986, Messrs. Shah Tools & Bearing Company of Bombay imported certain consignment of Pipe Wrenches. The said goods were not cleared by the said importer. The petitioners claim to be the indenting agents of Record Tools Ltd. of Sheffield, England, who had shipped the goods in question consisting of 9 (nine) consignments of pipe wrenches. By an Order dated 4th July, 1989, the Additional Collector of Customs confiscated the said goods by virtue of the powers conferred on him under the Customs Act 1962. By this time the said goods were lying in the docks for more than three years. It is averred in para 5 of the petition that the said order of confiscation was passed by the Additional Collector of Customs as the petitioners could not produce a specific licence for its clearance. By the said order of confiscation an option was given to the petitioners to pay redemption fine of Rs. 14 lacs in the aggregate in lieu of confiscation and get the goods released. The petitioners did not pay the redemption fine. The petitioners preferred an appeal before the CEGAT. The said appeal is still pending. A sum of Rs. 10,85,683/- was outstanding on account of demurrage payable in respect of the nine consignments on 12th April 1994, the date of the impugned auction.
4. Sometime in the month of January 1994, the petitioners addressed a letter to the Assistant Manager (Sales), Operation Service Station of Bombay Port Trust that the goods should not be auctioned as intended upon by the Port Trust as the appeal filed by the petitioners against the order of confiscation
was pending. In the said letter it was stated;
“Please note our clients are always ready and prepared to pay the demurrage charges’ to avoid auction”.
Correspondence followed. The Port Trust. Authorities did not want to postpone auction. The auction was scheduled to be held on 8th April, 1994. Necessary advertisements published prior to holding of the auction. In the auction notice it was also stated that in case it was necessary the unsold lots shall be offered for sale through a Public Tender Sale on 12th April, 1994. By letter dated 7th April, 1994, the Assistant Collector of Customs also requested the Port Trust that the goods intended to be auctioned may be withdrawn from auction as the case of the Importer was pending of final decision before the Tribunal. The Customs Authorities were obviously served with the necessary notice as contemplated in Section 61(3) of the Major Port trusts Act 1963. This fact is obvious from the contents of letter dated 7th April, 1994 addressed by the Assistant Collector of Customs. Appraising Group IV, addressed to the Deputy Dock Manager, Bombay Port Trust, Sales (Exhibit — D to the petition).
5. On 12th April, 1994, all the nine
consignments were sold for aggregate sum of Rs. 7,88,363/- (approximately). The petitioner addressed further letters to the Port Trust Authorities after the impugned auction was held. A copy of letter dated 16th April, 1994, is annexed as Exhibit “F” to the petition. On 20th April, 1994, this petition was filed.
6. By my order dated 20th April, 1994, I had passed an Order for continuation of status quo till 5 p.m. on 21st April, 1994, as the learned advocate on record for the Port Trust authorities wanted to take instructions as he was served only sometime in the morning on 21st April, 1994.
7. From narration of the above facts, it is obvious that the Respondent No. 1 has exercised its statutory powers by auctioning the said nine consignments as contemplated under Sections 61 and 62 of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Respondent No. 1
has not followed the procedure prescribed by Section 61(2) of the Act. The learned counsel for the petitioners is not factually right. The learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the Respondent No. 1 has not served any notice on the customs authorities though required by law. The learned counsel for Respondent No. 1 makes a statement at the bar that the necessary notice was in fact served on the customs authorities. I find that the customs authorities were very much aware of the intended auction. I also find from the contents of letter dated 7th April, 1994 (Exhibit D to the petition) that the customs authorities were duly served with necessary auction notice.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in view of the order of confiscation of property in this case were vested in the Central Government and the Port Trust authorities were not entitled to exercise their statutory powers under Sections 61 and 62 of the Act, without consent of the Central Government. I have no hesitation in rejecting this submission. Section 5 of the Major Port Trust Act 1963, provides that “the Board constituted under the Act is a body corporate having perpetual succession and a common seal with power, subject to the provisions of this, Act, to acquire, hold or dispose of property and may be sued or be sued by its name”. It matters not that the property in this case vested in Union of India. The Port Trust authorities were entitled to exercise their statutory right by auctioning the goods particulary when no demurrage was paid even though a period of about 7 years and odd had passed by. The petitioner state in letter dated 17th January, 1994, that the petitioner was ready and prepared/willing to pay the amount of demurrage. The so called readiness and willingness to pay the amount was not genuine. No amount was offered. Even at the commencement of hearing of this petition when I enquired of the learned counsel for the petitioners as to whether the petitioners would deposit or pay under protest about Rs. 8 lacs in Court, the learned counsel for the petitioners frankly informed the Court that the question of payment of deposit did not arise. At that time I did not know all the facts
of the case and the querry of the court was made at the inception of hearing just to know the reaction of the learned counsel for the petitioners particularly as in these matters usually, no Interim Relief is granted unless the amount of demurrage is secured. Only in exceptional cases relief can be granted even without imposing of any terms.
The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Court should direct CEGAT to dispose of the pending appeal against the order of confiscation and restrain the port trust authorities from delivering the auctioned goods to Respondents Nos. 2 and 3, I have no doubt in my mind that Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 are bona fide purchasers of the goods and the Court cannot lightly pass any order of injunction restraining delivery of goods unless a strong prima facie case is made out about the illegality committed by the port trust authorities in holding of the auction. Section 61(3) of the Major Port Trust Act 1963, provides that “even where the notice is not served on the owner of the goods, the title of a bona fide purchaser of the goods is not to be invalidated by reason of the omission to serve any such notice”. The principle behind the said provision is salutary.
8A. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the port trust authorities has auctioned the goods at throw away price and the petitioner was ready and willing to purchase the said goods by offering ten per cent more than the price for which the goods were sold. I am not impressed by the said submission. There is no reliable date in support of the said submission. I am not prepared to hold that the Respondent No, 1 has acted arbitrarily or committed breach of statutory provisions of law. It is true that the appeal before the CEGAT is pending. Merely because the pendency of the appeal, port trust authorities were not precluded in law from going ahead with exercise of its statutory power to auction the goods within the contemplation of Sections 61 and 62 of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963. For these reasons I have come to the conclusion that there is no merit whatsoever in the petition and the petition must fail. I have accordingly
dismissed the petition summarily as set out in
the opening part of this Order.
9. Ad interim Relief was granted till 5 p.m. yesterday. It was impliedly understood that the said Ad interim Relief shall continue till the petition is heard today. The Ad interim Relief is vacated with immediate effect.
10. The learned counsel for the petitioners prays that Ad-interim. Relief be continued at least for a week. I was inclined to consider the said prayer on the condition that the petitioner would deposit reasonable amount in Court. The petitioners are not willing to deposit any, amount in Court. The said application for continuation of Ad interim Relief, is therefore, rejected.
11. Issue of certified copy is expedited.
Petition dismissed.