Cuttack, Nov. 25: Orissa High Court today quashed the Centre’s notification extending the limits of Calcutta port on the ground of violation of statutory provisions. The ruling comes as a blow to Calcutta Port Trust’s bid to revive the port, which has been facing a plethora of problems.

The Centre had issued the notification on October 22, 2010, on the altered limits of Calcutta Port Trust (CPT). The CPT had followed up with its own notification on November 10, 2010. Keonjhar Navanirman Parishad had challenged the revised limits of Calcutta Port in a public interest litigation (PIL) on February 14.

The Odisha government had taken up the issue with the Union shipping ministry contending that the extension of Calcutta port’s limits threatened the upcoming ports in the state. Apart from chief minister Naveen Patnaik, Union minister of state for chemicals and fertilisers Srikant Jena had written to the Union shipping minister asking for a reconsideration on the issue.

Allowing the PIL, the two-judge bench of Chief Justice V. Gopala Gowda and Justice B.N. Mohapatra declared the Union government notification as “illegal”, “arbitrary”, “unjustified” and “unreasonable”. “The central government notification is quashed. As a result, the notification issued by Calcutta Port Trust is also quashed,” the bench ruled.

Parishad secretary Dillip Kumar Mohapatra had challenged the notification on the ground that it allowed the CPT to extend its limit 200km south of Haldia into the limits of seven non-major ports already notified by the Odisha government.

“The notification is arbitrary,” the high court ruled, while endorsing the parishad’s contention that “the extension of the port limit is against the letter and spirit of Indian Ports Act which gives equal power to both central and state governments in respect of ports under each one’s control”.

“The Indian Ports Act, 1908, is a central legislation where certain powers are vested with the state government. Once the power vested in the state government, it is exercised under section 5 of the Indian Ports Act and a right has accrued such right cannot be diverted by a notification issued by the central government,” the ruling said.

Parishad counsel Narsingha Mishra said: “It’s a battle won for Odisha as the extended limits was set to block the entire coast of north Odisha.” Advocate-general Ashok Mohanty said: “The high court verdict has vindicated the stand of the Odisha government.”

“The notification is without jurisdiction,” the high court further ruled as it endorsed the state government’s contention that “the extended limits encroaches into the pre-existing limits of six ports — Bichitrapur, Subarnarekha mouth, Bahabalpur, Inchuri, Chandipur, Chudamani and touches the limits of Dhamra port”.

The central government argued that it is fully empowered to issue such notifications and also has the powers to alter the limits of any port by uniting with that port, any other port or a part of any other port.

The high court however, rejected the central government’s claim and observed that the notification was “unreasonable” and “against principle of natural justice” as it was issued without consulting the state government.

The CPT, as an intervener, had contended: “The extent of limit of the port not only became necessary in view of administrative exigency, but also because it is required for the purpose of business.”

“The northeast being land-locked, the immediate neighbours like Bhutan and Nepal also depend on the Calcutta port for their shipping,” CPT said.

After directing the ministry of shipping and CPT not to precipitate the matter, the high court, on September 29, ordered for maintaining status quo within the extended limits of Calcutta port and reserved judgment on the PIL on October 20.

Subsequently, in a written submission, the central government had clarified that the lines demarcating the extended limits of CPT “are only notional lines” and such lines “cannot be likened to physical boundary walls”.