HC directs VOC Port Trust to refund ₹98.17 lakh with interest

Holds that it is responsible for getting lands reclassified

February 16, 2017 09:38 pm | Updated February 19, 2017 08:26 am IST - MADURAI

The Madras High Court Bench here has directed VOC Port Trust in Thoothukudi to return ₹98.17 lakh, along with 6% interest from November 30, 2000, to a private company which could not establish a tank farm for storing hazardous and non-hazardous liquid cargo on 8.9 acres of land leased to it on Hare Island since the locality could not be reclassified from the highly secured Coastal Regulatory Zone (CRZ)-I to CRZ-II.

A Division Bench of Justices A. Selvam and P. Kalaiyarasan passed the order while allowing an Appeal Suit preferred by Indian Molasses Company (IMC) in 2008. The judges held that the port trust was liable to return the money collected towards advance lease rent, premium and refundable security deposit since it had failed to get the land reclassified despite writing several letters to the Union Ministry of Environment and Forests.

Authoring the judgement for the Bench, Mr. Justice Kalaiyarasan said the port trust had issued a tender notice on February 13, 1998 for creation of facilities such as warehouses, tank farms (oil depots) and marine workshops. The company applied for establishment of tank farm and it was allotted 8.9 acres on Hare Island, also known as Pandian Theevu, on May 20, 2000. Three other firms were also allotted land on the island.

However, the companies could not establish the tank farms for storing hazardous commodities such as kerosene, diesel and furnace oil, and non-hazardous commodities such as molasses and edible oil since the area had been classified as CRZ-I. Though the port trust wrote to the Union Ministries of Environment and Shipping in 2001 and 2002 stressing the need to reclassify the lands, it could not succeed in its attempts.

Opposing the private firm’s plea for refund with interest, the port trust contended that it was the responsibility of the allottee to obtain all kinds of statutory clearances as per the contract entered between them and hence the plea for return of money was not maintainable.

Rejecting the contention, the Division Bench said the term ‘statutory clearances’ mentioned in the contract would not refer to getting the land reclassified from CRZ-I to CRZ-II.

The judges also set aside an order passed by a District Court in Thoothukudi on January 8, 2008 rejecting the firm’s plea for ordering refund of money.

0 / 0
Sign in to unlock member-only benefits!
  • Access 10 free stories every month
  • Save stories to read later
  • Access to comment on every story
  • Sign-up/manage your newsletter subscriptions with a single click
  • Get notified by email for early access to discounts & offers on our products
Sign in

Comments

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.