Dead-vessel berth charges and statutory recovery procedure must be strictly followed before any additional port demand is enforced.

Berth hire for a dead vessel cannot be charged at commercial-vessel rates unless a valid revised notification extends that regime to the port; in the absence of such proof, the dead-vessel tariff applies. Any claim for additional berth hire charges based on short levy or similar recovery must also follow the mandatory statutory procedure under Section 56 of the Major Port Trusts Act, including notice before recovery. A mere demand communication is not a sufficient basis for enforcing the additional charge.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the vessel was a dead vessel and, if so, whether berth hire charges could be levied at the rate applicable to commercial vessels; (ii) whether additional berth hire charges could be demanded without following the statutory procedure under Section 56 of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963.

Issue (i): whether the vessel was a dead vessel and, if so, whether berth hire charges could be levied at the rate applicable to commercial vessels.

Analysis: The record did not contain sufficient evidence from the appellant to disprove the finding that the vessel was a dead vessel. The materials also showed that the port had been following the rates prescribed for dead vessels, and there was nothing to establish that a revised and applicable notification had been issued for Chennai Port Trust making commercial-vessel rates applicable to such dead vessels. In these circumstances, the demand based on commercial berth rates could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The vessel was to be treated as a dead vessel, and berth hire charges could not be levied at the rate applicable to commercial vessels.

Issue (ii): whether additional berth hire charges could be demanded without following the statutory procedure under Section 56 of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963.

Analysis: The claim for additional berth hire charges involved disputed questions and required the statutory procedure for short-levied or erroneously refunded charges to be followed. Section 56 contemplated issuance of a show cause notice before recovery, but the appellant had issued only a demand communication for a large additional amount. Such recovery action, without compliance with the statutory procedure, was not sustainable. The Court also held that the claim, if otherwise available, could be pursued only before the appropriate authority or forum in accordance with law.

Conclusion: Additional berth hire charges could not be demanded in the manner adopted by the appellant, and the statutory procedure had to be followed first.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the order in favour of the respondent failed, and the dismissal of the writ appeal left intact the determination that dead-vessel berth rates applied and that any further demand had to conform to the statutory recovery procedure.

Ratio Decidendi: In the absence of proof that a dead vessel had been brought within a newly notified commercial-rate regime, berth charges cannot be levied as for a commercial vessel, and recovery of additional port charges must follow the mandatory notice-based procedure prescribed by the governing statute.

---