Read Time: 10 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has said that a lapse of time alone cannot be a ground to close a writ petition raising a question of law matter, as adjudicating a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution does not necessarily involve a disputed factual setting.

A bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Prashant Kumar Mishra set aside a Bombay High Court order on a plea by JSW Steel Ltd with regard to the disposal of a writ petition by the appellant.

The appellant's counsel submitted that the crux of the issue was whether the appellant was liable to pay the charges for the removal of the wreck of a barge belonging to M/s Shivam Engineers, which capsized while ferrying iron ore from the appellant’s ship to the concerned port.

The counsel referred to a communication dated April 19, 1995, issued by the then Deputy Conservator of Mumbai Port Trust, which specifically stated that power under Section 14(1) of the Indian Ports Act, 1908, was being exercised and the appellant, in its previous avatar as ‘M/s Nippon Denro Ispat Ltd’, was called upon ‘to deposit a sum Rs 70 lakhs as adequate security to ensure that the said wreck had been raised or removed within the stipulated period’.

The counsel said that though the appellant had deposited the amount, the question was whether it was liable, since Section 14(1) of the Act placed liability on the owner of the vessel concerned.

Admittedly, in the present position, the counsel said, the owner of the vessel was respondent number three and not the appellant.

The counsel said that the high court disposed of the writ petition on the erroneous presumption that it had become infructuous and that the parties (appellant and respondent number one inter-se) had the remedy to recover further amounts, which was kept open.

The counsel submitted that once the law is clear as to on whom the liability for the wreckage or its removal lies, the appellant could not be saddled with the cost thereof. It was contended that the further direction in favour of respondent number one to encash Rs 70 lakhs (along with accrued interest) deposited by the appellant pursuant to earlier orders of the high court was totally unjustified in law.

On the opposite, the counsel for the Mumbai Port Trust said the high court had merely closed the issue as 20 years had passed. He submitted that the wreckage had already been cleared.

The counsel also said that the right of the appellant had been safeguarded, inasmuch as it had the right to move a suit, where the dues, if any, against the concerned parties could be thrashed out.

Finding merit in the appellant's submissions, the bench said, "The way the High Court approached the issue appears to be erroneous for the simple reason that the lis was very much alive, as a pure question of law stood raised i.e., on whom the liability for clearing the wreckage was to be fastened."

The court said the impugned order had not dealt with this fundamental issue.

"When on a purely legal issue, the appellant raised a legal objection, and also deposited the amount demanded by respondent number one in the High Court, in our considered view, the High Court was required to answer the question of law. In this analysis, no exercise was required involving disputed factual questions. Moreover, the efflux of time is a result of systemic delay, not due to any laches on the part of the appellant," the bench said.

Relying upon B S Hari Commandant Vs Union of India (2023), the bench said the aspects of (a) lapse of time alone not being a ground to close the matter, and (b) adjudicating a petition under Article 226 when it does not really involve a disputed factual setting, find support from the decisions of this court.

"We are unable to sustain the order impugned. Accordingly, the same is set aside," the bench said, remanding the matter to the high court to consider all issues on merits as raised in the writ petition.

As the monies deposited by the appellant are stated to have already been withdrawn by respondent number one, were the appellant to eventually succeed in the writ petition, the appellant would be suitably compensated on this score, the bench clarified.

Having regard to the fact that the writ petition was of the year 1996, the bench requested the high court to give priority to the matter and dispose of it as expeditiously as possible.

Case Title: JSW Steel Ltd Vs The Board of Trustees of the Mumbai Port Trust Mumbai & Ors