Port limit alteration upheld where public interest and operational needs outweighed temporary arrangements and unsupported expectation claims.

The statutory power to alter port limits under the Indian Ports Act, 1908 is sustainable where exercised for demonstrable public interest and not shown to infringe any legally protected private property right. On the facts, the port expansion was justified by anticipated traffic growth and operational needs, including anchorage, customs, safety, and administration, so the notification was upheld. Claims based on legitimate expectation failed because the MOUs were time-limited and created no enforceable right, while related correspondence left reclaimed land and dredged channel benefits under governmental control. Unauthorized reclamation could not be used to defeat the notification or bypass the bidding framework for conversion of a captive facility into a commercial port.

---

---

Issues: Whether the notification altering the limits of Hazira port under Section 5 of the Indian Ports Act, 1908 was ultra vires for want of public interest or for infringing the appellants' alleged rights arising from prior correspondence, permissions, and memoranda of understanding.

Analysis: The power to alter port limits under Section 5 of the Indian Ports Act, 1908 is exercisable subject to private property rights, but the material before the Court showed that the impugned expansion was taken to meet expected growth in traffic and related operational requirements, including anchorage, customs formalities, safety, and port administration. The appellants' reliance on legitimate expectation failed because the MOUs were time-limited and conferred no enforceable right, while the correspondence indicated that reclaimed land and dredged channel benefits were subject to governmental control. The Court also held that reclamation beyond the permitted scope had been undertaken without prior permission under Section 35(1) of the Gujarat Maritime Board Act, 1981, and that the appellants could not use the port-limit challenge to convert a captive facility into a commercial port without the bidding framework contemplated by the Gujarat Infrastructure Development Act, 1999.

Conclusion: The notification was upheld as intra vires, and the challenge to the altered port limits failed.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was rejected on merits because the impugned notification was found to be legally valid and consistent with public interest.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory power to alter port limits will be sustained when exercised for demonstrable public interest and not shown to infringe any legally protected private property right, and an asserted expectation founded on temporary arrangements or unauthorized reclamation does not invalidate such action.

---