Court directs writ petitioners to deposit Rs. 50 lakh in bank for goods removal. Port's claim pending adjudication with interest.

The court directed the writ petitioners to deposit Rs. 50 lakh in a nationalized bank to remove goods within 30 days. The court reserved final adjudication on the Port's claim, with interest payable if the claim was exaggerated. The writ petitioners were required to issue an undertaking for excess charges, but removal of goods was not contingent upon this. The judgment left open points for final hearing, granting the Port the right to seek appropriation of up to 75% of the deposit, subject to the final order.

---

---

Issues:
1. Writ petitioners' claim for waiver of rent due to pandemic-related lockdown.
2. Dispute over Port authorities' charges and writ petitioners' removal of goods.
3. Determining the deposit amount and conditions for removal of goods.
4. Adjudication on the Port's claim and interest on exaggerated charges.
5. Conditions for the writ petitioners' liability and undertaking.
6. Open points for final hearing and Port's right to appropriate deposit.

Analysis:

1. The writ petitioners imported goods but faced challenges due to the lockdown, leading to a delay in removing the material from the Port premises. They claimed entitlement to a rent waiver based on a circular from the Ministry of Shipping.

2. Despite being able to remove the goods in June 2020, the writ petitioners were met with resistance from the Port authorities demanding full payment of charges before allowing removal.

3. The court directed the writ petitioners to deposit Rs. 50 lakh in a nationalized bank, free from any lien, to remove the goods within 30 days. The fixed deposit receipt would be held by the Advocate for the Port without encumbrance.

4. The court reserved the final adjudication to determine the exact quantum of the Port's claim, with interest to be paid if the claim was found to be exaggerated. The writ court would assess the Port's charges and the writ petitioners' liability accordingly.

5. The writ petitioners were required to issue an unconditional undertaking for any excess charges, but removal of goods was not contingent upon this undertaking, only on the deposit and receipt handover.

6. The judgment left several aspects open for consideration at the final hearing, emphasizing that the order was without prejudice to the Port's rights. The Port was granted the right to seek appropriation of up to 75% of the deposit, subject to the final order on the writ petition.

---