Port Trust Can Regulate Movement Of Vessels, Boats And Other Watercrafts Within Port Waters But Must Adhere To Natural Justice: Kerala HC

The Court was considering challenge against an order of the Deputy Conservator of the Port Trust, which mandated the closure of a fuel bunk jetty. The closure was justified on the grounds that it could lead to accidents and collisions with passenger boats navigating the waters around the junkar, ferry boat, and tourist jetties in Fort Kochi.

Justice Syam Kumar V.M., however, quashed the order of the Deputy Conservator, finding that it lacked objectivity and fairness. The Court emphasized that the statutory authority must hear the party and make a decision objectively, ensuring fairness and adhering to the principles of natural justice.

“Port Trust is the competent authority, as envisaged under the erstwhile Major Port Trusts Act, 1963, and under the Major Port Authorities Act, 2021 to take steps to regulate the movement of vessels, boats, and other watercrafts within the port waters…It is clarified that the Port Authority shall be free to take a decision as empowered under the law and following the mandates of the Act and the Rules, keeping in mind the safety and security of the passengers and watercrafts that navigate through the port waters.”

Background Facts

The petitioner has held a Jetty license since 1963 from the Cochin Port Trust near Fort Kochi's Junkar Jetty. He runs a fuel station from the jetty which provides fuels to fishing boats.

On August 26, 2015, a tragic collision occurred about 90 meters from his jetty, involving a fishing and passenger boat, resulting in 11 deaths

Following accident, Deputy Conservator of Cochin Port Trust issued a notice to stop the operation of his fuel bunk jetty, stating that collision might

The notice was issued without hearing the petitioner stating that the tragic accident might since his jetty is located closer to junkar, ferry boat and tourist jetties in Fort Kochi. This was challenged in Court and as per Court's order, the petitioner was granted a hearing, however, an order was issued based on an inquiry report instructing him to immediately close down his fuel bunk jetty.

Counsel for Petitioner contended that he had no information about inquiry report and stated that orders were issued in violation the principles of natural justice. It was stated that orders were issued arbitrarily contrary to Article 14, 19 and 21.

Observations

The Court noted that the reason stated for closing the fuel bunk jetty was because of its close vicinity to junkar, ferry boat and tourist jetties and to avoid any future collisions in the area.

Referring to the Cochin Port Trust (Licensing of Jetties, Slip Ways and Boat Pen) Regulations of 1968, the Court found that the Deputy Conservator was empowered to take steps for removal of jetties, cancellation of license etc.

The Court stated that the authority must act with fairness and in accordance with the principles of natural justice. It stated that before taking any decision, the affected parties must be heard.

The Court found that the Deputy Conservator's notice ordering closure of the jetty was issued blindly, relying upon the Inquiry Report. It stated that there was no 'objective' analysis of the issue and found that the order lacked objectivity and fairness as envisaged under Article 14 of the Constitution.

The Court relying upon Apex Court decisions stated that there should be strict adherence to principles of natural justice while taking administrative decisions. Referring to Madhyamam Broadcasting Limited. V. Union of India and Others (2023), the Court stated, “These principles seek to realise the four momentous purposes viz., fair outcome, inherent value in fair procedure, legitimacy of the decision and the decision-making authority, and the dignity of individuals. It has been affirmed therein by the Supreme Court that the principles of fairness, 'express the elementary idea that to be a person, rather than a thing, is at least to be consulted about what is done with one'.”

Accordingly, the Court allowed the petition and ordered the Port Authority to take an independent decision after hearing the petitioner.

Counsel for Petitioner: Senior Advocate K Ramakumar, Advocates Asha Babu, S M Prasanth, G Renjith

Counsel for Respondents: Central Government Counsel V S Anilkumar, Senior Advocate K Anand, Advocates Nithin George, P Benny Thomas, M Gopikrishnan Nambiar, K John Mathai, Latha Anand, Saiby Jose Kidangoor, Rithu Jose, S Vishnu

Case Number: WP(C)NO.32149 OF 2015

Case Title: K K Damodaran & Co. v Union of India

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 732

Click here to Read/Download Order