Unstated cut-off dates in remission policy are arbitrary when they deny benefit to similarly situated claimants under Article 14.

An administrative authority implementing an adopted remission policy cannot add an unstated cut-off date to deny demurrage remission to one consignee while granting the benefit to others similarly situated. The Port Trust's refusal was based on a condition not found in the Ministry guidelines or the adopted resolution, and thus depended on irrelevant considerations while ignoring the governing policy. That departure from the stated remission scheme was held arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of Article 14. The rejection was set aside and the matter remitted for a comparable decision in accordance with the adopted policy.

---

---

Issues: Whether the denial of remission of demurrage by the Port Trust, on the ground that the petitioner's application was filed after 30 August 1995, was legally sustainable and non-discriminatory.

Analysis: The remission scheme flowed from the Ministry's guidelines as adopted by the Port Trust's resolution, and no cut-off date was fixed either in the guidelines or in the resolution. The rejection of the petitioner's claim rested only on a condition not found in the governing policy, while similarly situated consignees were granted the benefit. The impugned decision therefore involved disregard of relevant considerations, reliance on an irrelevant ground, and a departure from the Port Trust's own policy, attracting Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Conclusion: The denial of remission on the stated ground was unsustainable and discriminatory, and the petitioner was entitled to be considered on the same footing as other similarly situated consignees.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded, the impugned rejection was set aside, and the matter was remitted for passing a comparable order in accordance with the adopted remission policy.

Ratio Decidendi: An administrative authority acting under an adopted policy cannot introduce an unstated cut-off condition to deny a benefit to one claimant while granting it to similarly situated persons, as such deviation is arbitrary and violative of Article 14.

---