Excessive security charges for a ship-breaking plot were cut back where deployment lacked proof and prior sanction.

Security charges for safeguarding a ship-breaking plot were found excessive because the claimed deployment of 15 guards, 3 supervisors and 1 security officer was unsupported by contemporaneous justification, prior sanction, or proper records. The Court considered the limited size and nature of the plot under the Gujarat Maritime Board regime and accepted that one guard per shift would be sufficient for protection. As a result, the claim for security supervisors and the security officer was rejected, and recovery was confined to one-fifth of the claimed security-guard charges.

---

---

Issues: Whether the applicant was entitled to recover the full amount claimed towards security charges for safeguarding the ship-breaking plot, and whether the deployment of the number of guards, supervisors, and officer claimed was justified.

Analysis: The claim was examined against the size and nature of the plot, the absence of contemporaneous justification for deploying 15 security guards, 3 supervisors and 1 security officer, and the failure of the Official Liquidator to seek prior sanction or to maintain proper records. The security arrangement was found to be excessive and unsupported by satisfactory proof. The Court also noted the limited nature of the plot under the Gujarat Maritime Board regime and accepted that one guard in each shift would be sufficient for protection. On that basis, the claim for security supervisors and security officer was rejected, and the recoverable amount was confined to one-fifth of the claimed security-guard charges.

Conclusion: The applicant was not entitled to the full claim; payment was restricted to one-fifth of the amount claimed for security guards, while the claim for security supervisors and security officer was rejected.

---