1. 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 :

                  “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; 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 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 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 Respondent 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/- 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.

                  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 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 the 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 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 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)

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 06.08.2011