Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Cargo Handling Private Workers Pool vs Union Of India Rep By Its Secretary To … on 5 May, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH : AMARAVATI
****
WRIT PETITION NO: 11751 OF 2012
Between:
1. Cargo Handling Private Workers Pool,. S.J.Ward Building, VDLB Hospital
Premises Opp: Fire Station, Port Area, Visakhapatnam -530035 rep.by its
President Sri.K.V.Krishna Kumar
…Petitioner
AND
1. Union of India rep by its Secretary to Government, Ministry of Shipping and
Surface Transport New Delhi
2. The Chairman Visakhapatnam Port Trust, Visakhapatnam
…RespondentsDATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 05.05.2026
SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers
may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes / No
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be
marked to Law Reporters / Journals? Yes / No
3. Whether His Lordship wish to
see the fair copy of the Judgment? Yes / No__________________________________________
GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J
2* THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA
PRASAD
+ WRIT PETITION NO: 11751 OF 2012
% 05.05.2026
Between:
1. Cargo Handling Private Workers Pool,. S.J.Ward Building, VDLB Hospital
Premises Opp: Fire Station, Port Area, Visakhapatnam -530035 rep.by its
President Sri.K.V.Krishna Kumar
…Petitioner
AND
1. Union of India rep by its Secretary to Government, Ministry of Shipping and
Surface Transport New Delhi
2. The Chairman Visakhapatnam Port Trust, Visakhapatnam
…Respondents! Counsel for : Sri C.P. Ramaswami, learned Counsel for the Writ
Petitioner/s Petitioner.
^ Counsel for : Sri P. Veerraju, learned Counsel for Respondent
Respondent/s No.2
< Gist:
> Head Note:
4. ? Cases referred:
i. 1964 SCC OnLine SC 10
ii. AIR 1973 SC 2537
iii. (2006) 4 SCC 322
iv. (2009) 1 SCC 768
v. (2014) 4 SCC 108
vi. 1990 SCC OnLine AP 32
vii. (1979) 4 SCC 176
viii. (2003) 12 SCC 91
ix. (2004) 13 SCC 665
x. 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1331
xi. 2025 SCC OnLine SC 447
3
xii. (1988) 4 SCC 534
xiii. (2008) 8 SCC 236
xiv. (2010) 12 SCC 609
xv. (2024) 10 SCC 613
xvi. (2004) 9 SCC 468
4
Judgment reserved on 30.03.2026
Judgment pronounced on 05.05.2026
Judgment uploaded on 18.05.2026
Reportable Yes No
APHC010382562012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF MAY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA
PRASADWRIT PETITION NO: 11751 OF 2012
Between:
1. Cargo Handling Private Workers Pool,. S.J.Ward Building, VDLB Hospital
Premises Opp: Fire Station, Port Area, Visakhapatnam -530035 rep.by its
President Sri.K.V.Krishna Kumar
…Petitioner
AND
1. Union of India rep by its Secretary to Government, Ministry of Shipping and
Surface Transport New Delhi
2. The Chairman Visakhapatnam Port Trust, Visakhapatnam
…Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner: C P RAMASWAMICounsel for the Respondent No.1: DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF
INDIACounsel for the Respondent No.2: P VEERRAJU
5The Court made the following ORDER:
Heard Sri C.P. Ramaswami, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner and
Sri P. Veerraju, learned Counsel for Respondent No.2.
2. The present Writ Petition is filed seeking following relief:
“to issue an order, writ or direction more particularly one in
the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring inaction and
inordinate delay being indulged in by the Respondents as
illegal and arbitrary and unfair and in violation of Article 39 of
the Constitution of India and consequently direct the
Respondents to immediately release funds for a sum of
Rs.4,64,18,369/- coupled with interest at appropriate rate as
per Tariff Authority for Major Ports (TAMP) order from the
due date of such sum and pass such other order or orders as
this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances
of the case.”
3. At the outset, it must be stated that the Visakhapatnam Dock Labour Board,
Visakhapatnam, which is involved in the present dispute with the Writ
Petitioner herein got later merged with Visakhapatnam Board Trust
(Respondent No.2). Therefore, upto the stage of merger of Visakhapatnam
Dock Labour Board, Visakhapatnam (for short „VDLB‟) with Visakhapatnam
Port Trust (Respondent No.2) in the year 2008, the initial reference will be
made to VDLB, and, after 2008 the reference would be Visakhapatnam Port
Trust (Respondent No.2).
Submissions of the Writ Petitioner:
4. The Writ Petitioner herein is a duly registered Charitable Trust. The said
Trust has been founded by the Visakhapatnam Stevedores‟ Association and
Visakhapatnam Clearing & Forwarding Agents Association and registered on
19.01.1994 (Ex.P.1). The purpose for establishing the Writ Petitioner‟s Trust
is to identify, enroll, allot the work and regulate the Private Workers engaged
by the Members and users of Stevedores‟ Association and Clearing &
Forwarding Agents Association, Visakhapatnam, only against short supply of
the labour by the VDLB. The following are the objectives of the Trust :
6
“The Main Objects of the Trust are :
a) To identify, enroll, allot the work and regulate the Private
Workers engaged by the Members and users of Stevedor’s
Association and Clearing and Forwarding Agents’ Association of
Visakhapatnam, only against short supply of the labour by the
Visakhapatnam Dock Labour Board, Visakhapatnam.
b) To generally promote the welfare of the workers who are
identified and enrolled in the Trust.
c) To utilise the Funds of the Trust for the above purposes and
also for other Charitable purposes such as Education, Health,
Sports and Alleviation of sufferings of the Poor and the needy
etc.,
d) To carry out other public utility activity within the meaning of
“Charitable purposes” defined in the Income-tax Act.”
5. The Trust also has other objects which are ancillary or incidental to the
attainment of the main objects i.e., collecting money from the users of the
Private Workers‟ and also collect subscriptions from the Members of the two
Associations and to utilize the surplus fund arising out of collections from the
users and voluntary contributions to such Charitable purpose as Board of
Trustees may deem it expedient etc.,
6. Sri C.P. Ramaswamy, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner submits that
the Writ Petitioner submitted an Application on 09.08.1994 for registration
under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961; that the registration was
granted on 02.03.2001 with effect from 19.01.1994 in favour of the Writ
Petitioner (Ex.P.2); that the VDLB, in its Board meeting held on 24.01.1994
had resolved to this effect; that as a sequel to the decision of the Board dated
24.01.1994, the Writ Petitioner had authorized the VDLB to collect the levy
from the employers and pass on the same to the Pool i.e., the Writ Petitioner
herein vide Proceeding dated 27.01.1994; that, subsequently, from time to
time, the percentage of levy to be transferred was increased and about 40% of
the levy was transferred to the Writ Petitioner with effect from 01.03.1996; that
50% of levy was transferred to the Writ Petitioner with effect from 01.05.1997;
7
70% of levy was transferred to the Writ Petitioner with effect from 01.04.1998
and 90% of levy was transferred to the Writ Petitioner with effect from
01.10.1998. It is further submitted that VDLB had been making payments
from time to time which is the levy amount collected by the VDLB on behalf of
the Writ Petitioner in terms of the Resolution.
7. It is further submitted that on 04.12.2001 (Ex.P.3 colly), the Under
Secretary, Government of India had addressed a letter to the Chairman of
VDLB with the following query:
“However, on the basis of resolutions taken by the Board, it
has been transferring portion of levy to the Private Pool.
Since, VDLB has no role to pay in the affairs of the private
pool, the action on the part of the DLB to collect levy on
behalf of the pool and transfer it to the Pool may complicate
the matter. You are, therefore, requested to indicate why the
levy is being collected on behalf of Private Pool and put the
matter before the Board for review of its decisions in this
regard. Any follow up action in the matter may be done with
the approval of the Government.”
8. It is further submitted that the said correspondence dated 04.12.2001
(Ex.P.3) had also taken note of the fact that the VDLB has been collecting levy
in respect of Private Pool Workers engaged by the employers; that the Under
Secretary, Government of India had once again addressed another letter on
27.11.2002 (Ex.P.3 colly), categorically stating that the VDLB has no role to
play in the affairs of the Trust for Cargo Handling Private Workers Pool, and
therefore, it is advised that VDLB should not collect any levy on the
engagement of Private Workers on behalf of the Writ Petitioner herein. In
compliance with the directions of the Under Secretary, Government of India,
dated 27.11.2002 (Ex.P.3 colly), the VDLB had stopped collection of levy on
Pool Workers from 01.01.2003 onwards.
9. It is pertinent to mention herein that from 01.01.2003 onwards the Writ
Petitioner directly collects the levy. Therefore, the dispute is with regard to the
amounts of levy that was collected by VDLB upto 31.12.2002 but not
transferred the said amount to the account of the Writ Petitioner. In this
8
regard, the Writ Petitioner had addressed a letter on 07.10.2004 to VDLB to
pay/transfer an amount of Rs.20,97,25,525/- along with interest (Ex.P.4); that
in response to the said letter dated 07.10.2004, the VDLB had addressed a
letter to the Secretary of the Writ Petitioner on 15.10.2004 (Ex.P.5) raising
several objections with regard to the management of affairs of the Writ
Petitioner. The VDLB has also disputed the amount claimed by the Writ
Petitioner herein. The VDLB had also directed the Writ Petitioner to get the
accounts audited; that the Writ Petitioner complied with the demand of the
VDLB to get the accounts of the Writ Petitioner audited and got them audited;
that consequently Audit Report dated 15.04.2005 was submitted to the
Chairman of the VDLB vide letter dated 16.04.2005 (Ex.P.6); that the Audit
Report dated 15.04.2005 would indicate that the Audit commenced from
22.12.2004 and concluded on 12.04.2005; that on 04.07.2005, M/s Rao and
Kumar, Chartered Accountants, who had audited accounts of the Writ
Petitioner (vide Audit Report dated 15.04.2005), had given a clarification by
letter dated 04.07.2005 (Ex.P.7) to the Deputy Chairman, VDLB with certain
comments and remarks to the effect that the Writ Petitioner has filed Appeals
before the Income Tax Tribunal, Visakhapatnam Branch and the same are
pending; and that in the year 2008, as indicated hereinabove, the
Visakhapatnam Dock Labour Board, Visakhapatnam (VDLB) has merged with
Visakhapatnam Board Trust (Respondent No.2 herein) in place of VDLB due
its merger.
10. It is pertinent to mention herein that henceforth, reference will be made to
Respondent No.2 in place of VDLB due to it‟s merger.
11. The Writ Petitioner had addressed a detailed letter to the Respondent
No.2 (Visakhapatnam Port Trust Rep. by its Chairman) on 27.10.2008
(Ex.P.8) demanding the due amount from VDLB as on 31.12.2002 of a sum of
Rs.23,04,34,158/- . In response to the said letter of the Writ Petitioner, the
Respondent No.2 had directed the Writ Petitioner to get the accounts audited
by the Government Auditors vide letter dated 23.10.2009 (Ex.P.9). After
9
some correspondence by the Writ Petitioner, the Resident Audit Officer took-
up the Audit with effect from 08.02.2010 (Ex.P.10) and completed the
Government Audit on 06.05.2010. It is submitted that despite the fact that the
Audit was completed and the Report was submitted on or about 06.05.2010 to
the Respondent No.2 herein, copy of the Audit Report was not furnished to the
Writ Petitioner. Therefore, the Writ Petitioner had addressed a letter on
18.08.2010 (Ex.P.11) to the Chairman of Respondent No.2 to supply a copy of
the Audit Report and also requested Respondent No.2 to pay the amount as
stated in the Audit Report that is an amount of Rs.4,84,21,365/-.
12. It is pertinent to mention herein that the learned Counsel for the Writ
Petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to a letter addressed by the
Respondent No.2 dated 18.11.2010 (Ex.P.12) to the President of the Writ
Petitioner – Workers Pool admitting that as per the Audit Report, the amount
payable to the Writ Petitioner is Rs.4,64,18,369/- but not Rs.4,84,21,365/-.
Relevant portion of the letter is usefully extracted hereunder:
“With reference to your letter cited above, this is to inform
that a copy of the Audit Report was already sent to your
office. However, a copy of the same is enclosed herewith.
As per the Audit report the amount payable to Cargo
Handling Private Workers Pool is Rs.4,64,18,369/- but
not Rs.4,84,21,365/-.
Yours faithfully
Sd/-xxxx
Encl: as above. DOCKS MANAGER, CHD"
(Emphasis supplied)
13. The Writ Petitioner has addressed a letter to the Chairman of Respondent
No.2 on 11.07.2011 (Ex.P.13) demanding the transfer of Rs.4,84,21,365/-.
The letter also states that the demand is without prejudice to the claim for the
interest on delayed payments. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the
Writ Petitioner that on 27.05.2011, the Board of Respondent No.2 held its
meeting, wherein the issue with regard to the transfer of levy by the
10Respondent No.2 in favour of the Writ Petitioner was shown in the Agenda as
Item No.24, for which the Board has passed Resolution No.35/2011-12 to the
effect that after detailed discussion, the Board resolved to transfer balance of
levy of Rs.4,64,18,369/- payable by the then VDLB (now CHD) to M/s. Cargo
Handling Private Workers Pool (CHPWP) duly recovering outstanding dues if
any (Ex.P.16 colly at pages 81 to 84 of the Writ Petition).
14. On 04.01.2012, the Writ Petitioner had addressed a letter to the Union
Minister for Shipping requesting intervention of Hon‟ble Minister to ensure
timely transfer of the due amount from Respondent No.2 (Ex.P.16 colly at
pages 78 to 80 of the Writ Petition). It is further submitted that on 06.08.2011
(at Page No.86 of the Writ Petition), the Management Board of Respondent
No.2 had once again considered the earlier Resolution No.35/2011-12 with
respect to transfer of levy to M/s. Cargo Handling Private Workers Pool
(CHPWP) and recorded that the Board (Respondent No.2) is awaiting for
Ministry‟s clearance (Page Nos.85 and 86 of the Writ Petition).
15. At the admission stage, the learned Single Judge of this Court vide
Proceeding dated 22.11.2012 in W.P.M.P.No.14786/2012 in W.P.No.11751 of
2012, had passed the following Order :
“The dispute in the writ petition pertains to the liability
of respondent No.2 to reimburse the sum of Rs.4,64,18,369/-
to the petitioner. The basis for the petitioner’s claim is
resolution, dated 27.05.2011, under Agenda Item No.S-24
and Resolution No.35/2011-12. It is, therefore, necessary to
reproduce the relevant portion of the Minutes of the meeting
of the Board of Trustees of the Port Trust of respondent No.2
held on 27.05.2011:
“Agenda Item No.S-24:
Sub: Transfer of levy to M/s. Cargo Handling
Private Workers Pool (CHPWP).
RESOLUTION No.35/2011-12:
After detailed discussions, the Board resolved
to transfer the balance levy of Rs.4,64,18,369/-
11
payable by the then VDLB (now CHD) to M/s. Cargo
Handling Private Workers Pool (CHPWP) duly
recovering outstanding dues if any.”
From the above reproduced minutes, I am of the
prima facie opinion that respondent No.2 has agreed to
transfer the sum of Rs.4,64,18,369/- to the petitioner.
The learned counsel for respondent No.2
submitted that the Board was mislead into passing the
said resolution and that, therefore, respondent No.2 is
not Implementing the same. He has, however, fairly
conceded that in the counter affidavit, this plea has not
been raised.
I am of the prima facie opinion that so long as the
resolution of the Board to transfer the sum of
Rs.4,64,18,369/- remains in force and the same is not
recalled, respondent No.2 cannot withhold the said sum
without transferring the same in favour of the petitioner.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
the petitioner has to pay huge sums to more than 400
workers on reaching their age of superannuation and that
without transferring the said money, it is not possible for the
petitioner to meet its liability.
Having regard to the above facts and circumstances
of the case, I find the elements of balance of convenience
and irreparable injury in favour of the petitioner.
Accordingly, respondent No.2 is directed to
immediately transfer the above-mentioned sum of
Rs.4,64,18,369/- to the account of the petitioner Society. Out
of the said sum, the petitioner is permitted to utilize 50% of
the same for payment of the amounts to the workers under
different heads strictly in accordance with the Society bye-
laws and other extant provisions, which govern the
functioning of the petitioner. It shall also maintain proper
accounts for spending the amount. The balance 50% shall
be kept in fixed deposits in any Nationalised Bank, in the
name of the petitioner Society. The money so deposited shall
remain in the Fixed Deposits until disposal of the writ
petition.
12
Subject to the above directions, WPMP is disposed
of.”
(Emphasis supplied)
16. Assailing the Interim Order in W.P.M.P.No.14786/2012 in W.P.No.11751
of 2012 of the Order of the learned Single Judge dated 22.12.2012, the
Respondent No.2 filed W.A.No.205 of 2013. The Division Bench of this
Hon‟ble Court, vide Order dated 18.07.2025 had passed the following Order:
“The present writ appeal has been preferred against the
order, dated 22.11.2012, while the petition is still pending
before the learned single Judge till date.
We are of the opinion that the matter ought to be finally
disposed of by the learned single Judge on merits.
We, accordingly, direct the Registry to list the writ petition for
final consideration higher up in the list before the learned
single Judge on 21.07.2025.
The order, dated 14.02.2013, passed by this Bench shall
continue till such time as the same is either modified or
vacated by the learned single Judge or the writ petition is
finally disposed of. The Writ Appeal is, accordingly, disposed
of. No costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand
closed.”
SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT NO.2:
17. Respondent No.2 has filed Counter Affidavit on 09.10.2012. This Court
has perused the contents of the Counter Affidavit. Sifting through the contents
of the Counter Affidavit, it appears to the Court that Respondent No.2 had
simplicitor denied all the contentions of the Writ Petitioner. Respondent No.2
has denied the knowledge whether the Writ Petitioner is a Charitable Trust or
not. The said Respondent had stated that the Chairman of Respondent No.2
had not submitted any proposal during the early 90s to organize and regulate
the labour force who are employed for loading and unloading of goods in
Respondent No.2, besides labour force within the control of management of
VDLB. The Respondent No.2 has also denied having knowledge whether the
13
Commissioner of Income Tax has granted registration of the Writ Petitioner‟s
Association under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 with effect from
02.03.2001. The Respondent No.2 has also denied that the VDLB or
Respondent No.2 had never utilized the services of the Members of the Writ
Petitioner‟s Association even when there is a short fall in the VDLB.
Respondent No.2 had stated that the VDLB is permitted to engage private
labour to the extent of short supply. Respondent No.2 had denied the
payment of any amount to the Writ Petitioner. The said Respondent, in its
Counter Affidavit, has rejected the claim of the Writ Petitioner of
Rs.4,64,18,369/- together with consequential interest. It is stated that there
are disputed questions of facts and that the Writ Petitioner ought to have
approached the Civil Court. The said Respondent has also raised the
objections with regard to the limitation contending that the claim of the Writ
Petitioner is hopelessly barred by the provisions of the Indian Limitation Act,
and therefore, the Writ Petition is simply not maintainable.
REJOINDER BY THE WRIT PETITIONER:
18. The Writ Petitioner has filed the Rejoinder to the Counter Affidavit filed by
the Respondent No.2. The Writ Petitioner has reiterated the contentions
including the mooting of idea to form the Writ Petitioner‟s Association by the
Chairman of the Respondent No.2. The Writ Petitioner has reiterated that
admittedly an amount of Rs.4,64,18,369/- is due from the Respondent No.2.
The Writ Petitioner has placed reliance on the Proceeding of VDLB dated
27.01.1994 which is conveyed by the Secretary of VDLB to the Writ
Petitioner‟s Association to the effect that conveying the decision of the
Chairman to reduce the levy on thermal coal on the employment of private
workers for off-loading thermal coal wagons from 180% /100% to 150% /70%
and not collect levy on exports other than thermal coal on the employment of
Private Workers and also to reduce the levy on imports on the employment of
Private Workers by 20% and that such decisions would come into effect from
24.12.1993. In the Rejoinder filed by the Writ Petitioner, the Proceedings of
14the Chief Accounts Officer of VDLB dated 23.03.1996 is also placed on record
in which Resolution No.5/96 of VDLB had resolved to increase the percentage
of levy transfer by 10% making it a total of 40% with effect from 01.03.1996 to
M/s. Cargo Handling Private Workers Pool (CHPWP) on the employment of
Pool Workers. The Writ Petitioner has also placed reliance on the „Table
Paper‟ of the meeting held on 27.05.2011 which is included in Agenda Item
No.S-24 under the subject „Items for Sanction/Approval‟ to transfer of levy to
M/s. Cargo Handling Private Workers Pool (CHPWP).
ANALYSIS:
19. In the light of the above pleadings, following issues would arise for
consideration:
i. Whether the claim of the Writ Petitioner is barred by
limitation?
ii. Whether there are any disputed questions of fact that
would compel the parties to approach the Civil Court for
the purpose of adducing evidence?
iii. Whether the Correspondence made by Visakhapatnam
Dock Labour Board (VDLB) up to the year 2008 and the
Correspondence made by Respondent No.2 after the
merger in the year 2008, and its Board Resolutions
would legally bind the Respondent No.2 to transfer an
amount of Rs.4,64,18,369/- along with interest from the
due date till the date of payment?
ISSUE No.1:
(i) Whether the claim of the Writ Petitioner is barred
by limitation?
20. Sri P. Veerraju, learned Counsel representing Respondent No.2, has
raised a preliminary objection that the claim made by the Writ Petitioner in the
15
present Writ Petition is barred by limitation. To this effect, the Respondent
No.2 has raised the issue of limitation in para 13 of the Counter Affidavit filed
on or about 30.09.2012. It transpires from record that the present Writ Petition
is filed on 20.04.2012. Therefore, this Court is required to walk back in time to
see whether the claim has been made by the Writ Petitioner within three years
period from the date of cause of auction.
21-A. The Respondent No.2 has placed reliance on the following Judgments:
(i) State of Madhya Pradesh and Another V. Bhailal
Bhai and others: 1964 SCC OnLine SC 10 – Para No.17;
(ii) Rajendar Singh and others V. Santa Singh and
others: AIR 1973 SC 2537 – Para No.21;
(iii) Karnataka Power Corpn. Ltd. through its
Chairman & Managing Director and Another: (2006) 4
SCC 322 – Para No.6;
(iv) Tridip Kumar Dingal and Others V. State of West
Bengal and Others: (2009) 1 SCC 768 – Para No.59;
(v) Chennai Metropolitan Water supply and
Sewerage Board and Others V. T.T. Murali Babu: (2014)
4 SCC 108; and
(vi) Sri Konaseema Co-operative Central Bank Ltd.,
V. Seetharama Raju: 1990 SCC OnLine AP 32.
21-B. On the contrary, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner has placed
reliance on :
(i) Madras Port Trust v. Hymanshu International: (1979) 4 SCC 176.
22. The facts and the documents referred to hereinabove would firstly indicate
that the demand for transferring of the levy collected by VDLB initially is a
continuing one. The facts would indicate that the suggestion for forming of the
16
Petitioner‟s Trust came from the Chairman of VDLB itself. The facts would
also indicate that at different points of time the percentage of levy that was
transferred to the Petitioner‟s Trust had gradually increased. The facts would
also indicate that the levy was collected by VDLB up to 31.12.2002 but the
balance amount towards the end which the VDLB was due to the Writ
Petitioner was not transferred. At the behest of VDLB, the Petitioner got the
accounts audited and the Report was submitted on 15.04.2005.
23. Even after lot of exchange of correspondence between the Petitioner
herein and Respondent No.2, the Respondent No.2 had addressed a Letter
on 23.10.2009 to the Petitioner to get the accounts once again audited by the
Government Auditors. In due compliance with the same, the Writ Petitioner
got the accounts audited through the Resident Audit Officer and the Resident
Audit Officer has audited and submitted a Report on or about 06.05.2010.
Since the copy of the Report was not supplied to the Writ Petitioner, the Writ
Petitioner addressed a Letter on 18.08.2010 requiring the Chairman of
Respondent No.2 to supply a copy of the Audit Report and also to pay a sum
of Rs.4,84,21,365/-. Even at this stage, Respondent No.2 responded by
admitting the due amount as Rs.4,64,18,369/- instead of Rs.4,84,21,365/- vide
Correspondence dated 18.11.2010 (Ex.P.12). The notable milestone is the
Resolution of the Management Board of Respondent No.2 dated 27.05.2011
(Ex.P.16 – colly) which clearly indicates that agenda of Item No.24 deals with
the subject of: “Transfer of Levy to M/S. Cargo Handling Private Workers
Pool (CHPWP)”. For the said agenda of Item No.24, the Board passed the
Resolution bearing Resolution No.35/2011-12 on 27.05.2011 (Ex.P.16 Colly)
as under:
“After detailed discussions, the Board resolved to
transfer the balance levy of ₹ 4,64,18,369/- payable
by the then VDLB (now CHD) to M/s. Cargo
Handling Private Workers Pool (CHPWP) duly
recovering outstanding dues if any”.
(Emphasis supplied)
17
24. The Letter addressed by the Writ Petitioner to the then Hon‟ble Union
Minister for Shipping, Transport Bhavan, New Delhi dated 04.01.2012 also
had clearly mentioned about the Resolution of the Board dated 27.05.2011
thereby, requesting the Hon‟ble Minister to intervene in order to ensure that
the Respondent No.2 releases the funds due to the Writ Petitioner at the
earliest (Ex.P.16 – colly). The subsequent Resolution of the Board dated
06.08.2011 (at Page No.86 of the Writ Petition) would also indicate that the
claim of the Writ Petitioner is awaiting Ministry‟s clearance. Following is the
extract from the minutes of the Board Meeting held on 06.08.2011:
“2. MEETING NO.2 OF 2011-12 OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES TO BE
HELD ON 06.08.201123/2011- Hiring of 13 nos. Board resolved E-Tenders
12 Tata Sumos of 6 were
seater capacity of 1) To sanction, an Invited. But
model 2010 year or estimate amount of there is no
later with drivers for ₹2,45,82,160/- response
24 hrs duty for the (Rupees Two Crores from
use of VPT for a Forty five lakhs eighty Bidders.
period of three two thousand one Revised
Years. hundred and sixty estimate
only), including fuel under
and Service tax @ preparation.
10.3% on 40% Hire
charges and for
execution of the
subject work for a
period of 3 years,
under Section 93(1) of
MPT Act, 1963;
2) To offload the
subject work of Hiring
of 13 nos. Tata Sumos
of 6 seater capacity of
model 2010 year or
later with drivers for 24
hrs duty for the use of
VPT, to an outside
Agency by inviting e-
tenders duly publishing
in leading newspapers
as per norms.
18
and
3) To debit the
expenditure under
allocation No.051-424-
732.
35/2011- Transfer of levy to After detailed Awaiting
12 M/s. Cargo discussions, the Ministry's
Handling Private Board resolved to clearance.
Workers Pool transfer the balance
(CHPWP). levy of 4,64,18,369/-
payable by the then
VDLB (now CHD) to
M/s. Cargo Handling
Private Workers Pool
(CHPWP) duly
recovering
outstanding dues if
any.
(Emphasis supplied)"
25. Since the Writ Petition is filed on 20.04.2012 while much
correspondence, clearly admitting the due amounts of the Writ Petitioner has
been in progress, this Court is of the opinion that there is hardly any gap
between the two Resolutions of the Board dated 27.05.2011 and 06.08.2011
and the date of filing of the Writ Petition on 20.04.2012. In this view of the
matter, the preliminary objection raised by the Respondent No.2 that the claim
of the Writ Petitioner is barred by limitation, delay and laches is rejected. In
view of the findings as given above, it is opined that the judgments relied upon
by the Respondent No.2 are of no avail.
ISSUE No.2:
(ii) Whether there are any disputed questions of fact
that would compel the parties to approach the
Civil Court for the purpose of adducing
evidence?
19
26. For the purpose of dealing with this issue, it becomes relevant on the part
of the Court to refer to the pleadings and the documents in the Writ Petition
vis-à-vis, the Counter Affidavit filed by Respondent No.2 dated 30.09.2012.
The Writ Petitioner herein has substantiated its claim with supporting material
documents which includes correspondence between the Writ Petitioner and
VDLB upto the year 2008 and between the Writ Petitioner and Respondent
No.2 after the year 2008. The documents filed in respect of the claim raised
by the Writ Petitioner would also include the Audit Report of M/s. Rao and
Kumar, Charted Accountant dated 04.07.2005 and the Audit Report submitted
by the Resident Audit Officer on or about 06.05.2010. This Court had
particularly taken note of the Letter addressed by Respondent No.2 dated
18.11.2010 (Ex.P.12), basing on the Audit Report submitted by Resident Audit
Officer, admitting the due amount of Rs.4,64,18,369/- and not admitting the
higher claim of the Writ Petitioner of a sum of Rs.4,84,21,365/- (extracted
supra).
27. The averments in the Counter Affidavit of Respondent No.2 are merely of
denial simplicitor without substantiating such denials by any supporting
documents. In an adversarial litigation, denial simplicitor by the opponent
does not make the claim of the claimant redundant when the claimant (Writ
Petitioner) had substantiated its claim with relevant supporting material
documents. The instant case would disclose this situation where Respondent
No.2 has made a bald denial without being able to prove its stand/version by
any supporting documents. During the course of the submissions before the
Court, learned Counsel for Respondent No.2 has gone to the extent of
submitting that the Correspondence as well as the Resolutions of the Board
are fabricated without filing any supporting material nor an averment in
Counter-Affidavit. Mere contention that documents and Resolutions were
fabricated cannot be pitched against the claimant‟s version which is
substantiated and supported by material documents. In Krishna Mohan Kul
v. Pratima Maity : (2004) 9 SCC 468, the Hon‟ble Apex Court held in Para-12
as under:
20
“12. …. When fraud, misrepresentation or undue
influence is alleged by a party in a suit, normally, the
burden is on him to prove such fraud, undue influence
or misrepresentation.”
28. In the instant case, it must be categorically held that the Respondent
No.2 had merely raised contention as indicated above, but had not made any
attempt to substantiate the said contention that the entire correspondence and
the resolutions were obtained by fraud or by fabrication of documents. It is
pertinent to mention herein that my Learned Predecessor who had passed the
Interim Order in this Writ Petition on 22.11.2012, had also noted in the Interim
Order (extracted supra) that the Ld. Counsel for the Respondent No.2 had
contended that the Board of Respondent No.2 was mislead into passing the
Resolution dated 27.05.2011 and that the Ld. Counsel for the Respondent
No.2 had fairly conceded that no such contention has been raised in the
Counter-Affidavit. It is also pertinent to mention herein that despite the fact
that my Learned Predecessor has noted in the Interim Order to the above
effect way back on 22.11.2012, even during the pendency of this Writ Petition
for 14 long years, the said Respondent has not placed any material on record
to substantiate that the Board was either mislead in passing the Resolution or
that the correspondence and the Resolution are fabricated.
29. By applying the above case law to the facts of this case, this Court opines
that the Respondent No.2 has miserably failed to disprove the claim of the
Writ Petitioner with any supporting documents. Therefore, this Court would
not hesitate to reject the submission of the learned Counsel for the
Respondent No.2 that there are disputed questions of fact and therefore, the
Writ Petitioner ought to have approached the Civil Court. This Court,
therefore, holds that there are no disputed questions of fact and there is no
requirement of relegating the matter to Civil Court. This apart, even assuming
that there are disputed questions of fact that may require adducing of
evidence, it is a settled law that Writ Court is as competent as the Civil Court
21
to adduce evidence instead of relegating the matter to the Civil Court when
the Writ Petition itself has been subsisting on the file of this Court for a very
long time i.e., since the year 2012. Admittedly, the precise amount due to the
Writ Petitioner was finally indicated in the Audit Report submitted by the
Resident Audit Officer on or about 06.05.2010 and the Board of Respondent
No.2 had passed two successive Resolutions on 27.05.2011 and 06.08.2011
and the present Writ Petition has been filed on 20.04.2012. Therefore, in the
interest of justice, this Court rejects the contention of Respondent No.2 that
the dispute between the Writ Petitioner and Respondent No.2 should be
adjudicated by the Civil Court. The view of this Court that this is not a fit case
for relegating this case to the Civil Court is fortified by the Judgment of the
Hon’ble Apex Court in Ganga Retreat & Towers Ltd. and Another V. State
of Rajastan and Others: (2003) 12 SCC 91, wherein the Hon‟ble Apex Court
held in Para-18 as under:
“18. Although prima facie we are in agreement with the
view taken by the High Court that the petition involves
disputed questions of fact in relation to a completed
contract of sale of land which cannot be adequately
adjudicated upon in exercise of writ jurisdiction, but,
despite holding that the disputed questions of fact are not
to be adjudicated in exercise of writ jurisdiction, yet we are
not inclined, in the exercise of power under Article 136 of
the Constitution to dismiss the appeal on this account at
this stage because that is likely to result in the miscarriage
of justice on account of lapse of time which may now
result in the foreclosure of all other remedies which could
be availed of by the appellants in the ordinary course. At
the present stage of the proceedings the alternative
remedy of filing the suit would not be efficacious. This
Court in a number of cases, even after recording a
finding that the writ petition was not maintainable and
that the High Court ought not to have entertained it,
has declined to interfere on the ground of non-
maintainability where it is found, that the matter has
been pending for long and/or the High Court has
already entertained the writ petition (albeit wrongly)
and/or when to send the writ petitioner back would
22cause grave delay or harassment. In such cases this
Court has proceeded to decide the dispute on merits.
For this, we may refer to a recent decision of this Court
in Kerala SEB v. Kurien E. Kalathil [(2000) 6 SCC 293] in
which this Court observed: (SCC p. 299, para 12)“12. Ordinarily, in view of the aforesaid
conclusions on the first contention, we would
have allowed the appeal and directed dismissal
of the writ petition (OP No. 283 of 1995) without
examining the second contention. However,
despite holding that the disputes in question
could not be agitated in a writ petition and thus
the High Court wrongly assumed jurisdiction in
the facts of the case, yet we are not inclined in
the exercise of our power under Article 136 of
the Constitution, to dismiss the writ petition of
the contractor at this stage because that is
likely to result in the miscarriage of justice on
account of lapse of time which may now result
in the foreclosure of all other remedies which
could otherwise be availed of by the contractor
in the ordinary course. Those remedies are not
efficacious at the present stage and, therefore,
in view of the peculiar circumstances of the
case, we have examined the second contention
and the factors which weighed with the High
Court in granting relief.” “
(Emphasis supplied)
30. In the case of Durga Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. Principal Secy., Govt. of
U.P., : (2004) 13 SCC 665, the Hon‟ble Apex Court had set aside the direction
given by the Hon‟ble High Court relegating the parties to the Civil Court due to
long pendency of the Writ Petition and had remanded the Writ Petition to the
Hon‟ble High Court to render a decision on merits. The Hon‟ble Apex Court
held in Para Nos. 1 to 5 as under:
“1. Leave granted.
2. By the impugned order the writ petition, which was
pending for a long period of thirteen years, has been
summarily dismissed on the ground that there is remedy of
civil suit. The dispute between the parties was concerning
exercise of the respondents’ alleged right of re-entry on
the disputed property in accordance with sub-rules (2) and
(3) of Rule 5 of the Land Acquisition (Companies) Rules,
231963. The aforesaid Rules contain a mechanism for
adjudication of a dispute relating to the alleged breach of
terms of the agreement and the manner in which it is to be
resolved.
3. The High Court, having entertained the writ
petition, in which pleadings were also complete, ought
to have decided the case on merits instead of
relegating the parties to a civil suit.
4. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order of
the High Court and remit the matter to it for taking a
decision on merits, after hearing the parties, within
the earliest possible period.
5. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed.”
(Emphasis supplied)
31. The Hon‟ble Apex Court had taken similar view in State of U.P and
Another V. Ehsan and Another : 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1331, the Hon‟ble
Apex Court held in Para-28 as under:
“28. We are conscious of the law that existence of an
alternative remedy is not an absolute bar on exercise of
writ jurisdiction. More so, when a writ petition has been
entertained, parties have exchanged their
pleadings/affidavits and the matter has remained
pending for long. In such a situation there must be a
sincere effort to decide the matter on merits and not
relegate the writ petitioner to the alternative remedy,
unless there are compelling reasons for doing so. One
such compelling reason may arise where there is a
serious dispute between the parties on a question of
fact and materials/evidence(s) available on record are
insufficient/inconclusive to enable the Court to come
to a definite conclusion.”
(Emphasis supplied)
32. The Hon‟ble Apex Court in A.P. Electrical Equipment Corpn. v.
Tahsildar: 2025 SCC OnLine SC 447, held in Para-48 as under:
“48. Normally, the disputed questions of fact are not
investigated or adjudicated by a writ court while
exercising powers under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India. But the mere existence of
24the disputed question of fact, by itself, does not take
away the jurisdiction of this writ court in granting
appropriate relief to the petitioner. In a case where the
Court is satisfied, like the one on hand, that the facts
are disputed by the State merely to create a ground
for the rejection of the writ petition on the ground of
disputed questions of fact, it is the duty of the writ
court to reject such contention and to investigate the
disputed facts and record its finding if the particular
facts of the case, like the one at hand, was required in
the interest of justice.”
(Emphasis supplied)
33. As indicated above, coming to the facts of the present case, this Court
has already held that the contentions raised by the Respondent No.2 have not
been substantiated by showing any material documents to the contrary. The
denials made by the Respondent No.2 in its Counter-Affidavit are mere
denials for the sake of denials only inasmuch as the said Respondent No.2
has not filed any material to the contrary. Therefore, this Court would not
hesitate in holding that the denials are evasive in nature without there being
any specific denial (Please see: (i) Bharat Singh v. State of Haryana:
(1988) 4 SCC 534 – Para No.13; (ii) State of Uttaranchal v. Kharak Singh :
(2008) 8 SCC 236 – Para No.20; (iii) Rajasthan Pradesh Vaidya Samiti v.
Union of India : (2010) 12 SCC 609 – Para Nos.15 to 18; and (iv) A.B.
Govardhan v. P. Ragothaman : (2024) 10 SCC 613 – Para No.22).
34. Therefore, this Court holds that the claim of the Writ Petitioner is proved
without any iota of doubt. The documents filed by the Writ Petitioner/Claimant
would overwhelmingly establish the fact that there was implied privity of
contract between the Writ Petitioner and VDLB at the first instance which
continued after VDLB got merged with the Respondent No.2 (Visakhapatnam
Port Trust).
25
ISSUE No.3:
(iii) Whether the Correspondence made by
Visakhapatnam Dock Labour Board (VDLB) up to
the year 2008 and the Correspondence made by
Respondent No.2 after the merger in the year 2008,
and its Board Resolutions would legally bind the
Respondent No.2 to transfer an amount of
Rs.4,64,18,369/- along with interest from the due
date till the date of payment?
35. In the light of the discussion made by this Court in respect of issue Nos.1
& 2, this Court is of the opinion that the Respondent No.2 is legally obligated
to transfer the due amount of Rs.4,64,18,369/- along with admissible interest
from the due date till the date of payment.
36. For adjudication of interest, this Court deems it necessary to refer to the
Audit Report submitted by the Resident Audit Officer. Although the complete
Audit Report has not been filed by the Writ Petitioner, part of the Audit Report
is placed at pages 74 to 75 of the Writ Petition. Learned Counsel for the Writ
Petitioner has particularly drawn the attention of this Court to Sub-heading in
para 2 “Interest on outstanding levy”. The contents of the said para is usefully
extracted hereunder:
“2. Interest on outstanding levy:
Regarding the claim of interest by CHPWP on the
outstanding levy (Rs.9,24,68,384.00 calculated at the rate of
18 percent from 23-09-2004 to 13-10-2008), VDLB may
consider the payment of interest at the rate as adopted by
VDLB from time to time in respect of delayed payments.”
37. The above extract would indicate that the Resident Audit Officer has
recommended to the Respondent No.2 to consider the payment of interest at
the rate as adopted by the VDLB from time to time in respect of delayed
payments. Therefore, taking the support from this recommendation made by
the Resident Audit Officer, this Court deems it appropriate to award similar
26
interest as adopted by the VDLB from time to time in respect of delayed
payments. It is pertinent to mention herein that the rate of interest adopted by
the VDLB has neither been placed on record by the Writ Petitioner nor by the
Respondent No.2. However, this Court believes that the rate of interest
adopted by the VDLB would be a matter of verifiable record available with the
VDLB/Respondent No.2 as well as the Writ Petitioner herein. Therefore, this
Court deems it appropriate to award the similar rate of interest as adopted by
VDLB from time to time with regard to the delayed payments and the same
shall be calculated from the date that the VDLB/Respondent No.2 had fallen
„due‟ to the Writ Petitioner till the date of payment with interest to be
transferred by the Respondent No.2 in favour of Writ Petitioner within a period
of 12 weeks from the date of uploading of this Order on the Web-site of this
Court. Any further delay shall carry the interest at the rate of 18% P.A till the
date of payment.
38. In the above premise, this Writ Petition stands allowed. No order as to
costs.
39. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order.
______________________________________
GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J
Dt: 05.05.2026
Note: LR copy to be marked.
JKS/VNS/MNR
27
317
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD
WRIT PETITION No. 11751 OF 2012
Dt: 05.05.2026
Note: LR copy to be marked.
JKS/VNS/MNR
