Mistaken port charge demand barred by writ relief where undercharging was admitted and no fraud or suppression was shown.

Mistaken undercharging in port bills can justify equitable relief in writ jurisdiction where the later demand is based on an admitted error by the Port Authorities and the recipient did not engage in fraud or suppression. The Court held that, on these facts, the additional port charges raised long after clearance could not be enforced against the petitioners. The statutory basis for recovery of short-levied charges did not override the equitable conclusion reached on the record. Relief was therefore granted against enforcement of the mistaken demand, and the challenged additional bills were set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petitioners were liable to pay the additional port charges raised later on the basis of an erroneous undercharging, and whether relief could be granted in writ jurisdiction on the ground of mistake.

Analysis: The dispute arose from port bills raised long after clearance of goods, where the original bills had allowed a longer free storage period than the period later applied by the Port Authorities. The Court found that the undercharging resulted from a mistake on the part of the Port Authorities and that the petitioners had cleared the goods without detecting the mistake at the material time. The Court also found no deliberate fraud or suppression on the part of the petitioners. In these circumstances, the Court treated the matter as one of mutual mistake and held that equitable relief was available in writ jurisdiction. The statutory reliance on recovery of short-levied charges did not displace that equitable conclusion on the facts of the case.

Conclusion: The petitioners were entitled to relief from the mistaken demand, and the additional bills could not be enforced against them.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded and the challenged demand for additional port charges was set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a demand for port charges is raised on an admitted mistaken undercharging, without fraud or suppression by the recipient of the original bill, writ jurisdiction may grant equitable relief against enforcement of the mistaken demand.

---