Specific port lien under the Major Port Trusts Act cannot reach third-party goods; larger-bench reference was justified.

A port authority's lien under Sections 59 and 61 of the Major Port Trusts Act is confined to specific goods in respect of which dues have accrued, and the power of sale cannot be extended to third-party goods merely found on port premises for recovery of rent due from an unauthorised occupant under the Public Premises Act. The contrary suggestion was treated as obiter and not a binding interpretation. Where co-ordinate Bench decisions appear to conflict, a reference to a Larger Bench was regarded as the proper course consistent with judicial discipline and the Chief Justice's power to constitute an appropriate Bench.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the lien and sale power under Section 59 and Section 61 of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 can be extended to goods of a third party lying on port premises for recovery of rent due from an unauthorised occupant under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971; (ii) Whether the learned Single Judge was justified in making a reference for constitution of a Larger Bench on account of alleged conflict between co-ordinate Division Bench decisions.

Issue (i): Whether the lien and sale power under Section 59 and Section 61 of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 can be extended to goods of a third party lying on port premises for recovery of rent due from an unauthorised occupant under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971.

Analysis: The lien created by Section 59 is confined to specific goods in respect of which rates or rent have accrued. The corresponding power of sale under Section 61 is likewise limited to those goods only. The provisions do not create a general lien over all goods lying on the premises, nor do they authorise seizure or sale of a stranger's goods for recovery of dues owed by another person. The provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 cannot be read so as to enlarge the statutory lien under the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963. The observations in the later co-ordinate Bench decision, to the extent they suggested otherwise, were treated as obiter and not as a binding interpretation of Sections 59 and 61.

Conclusion: The lien and sale power are confined to specific goods connected with the dues claimed and do not extend to third-party goods merely because they are found on port premises; the contrary view was not accepted.

Issue (ii): Whether the learned Single Judge was justified in making a reference for constitution of a Larger Bench on account of alleged conflict between co-ordinate Division Bench decisions.

Analysis: Where co-ordinate Bench decisions appear to conflict, the proper course is to refer the matter for authoritative resolution rather than to choose between them at the Single Judge level. The inherent power of the Chief Justice to constitute an appropriate Bench for deciding an important question of law was recognised, and the reference procedure was held to be consistent with judicial discipline and the hierarchy of precedent.

Conclusion: The reference to a Larger Bench was held to be justified.

Final Conclusion: The reference was answered in the petitioners' favour on the substantive port lien question, and the writ petition was directed to be placed before the learned Single Judge for decision on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: A port authority's lien under Sections 59 and 61 of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 is a specific lien confined to goods in respect of which dues have arisen and cannot be stretched to third-party goods or to create a general recovery mechanism for rent due from an unauthorised occupant under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971.

---