The HC determined that the communications (Exts.P2 to P5) issued...

The HC determined that the communications (Exts.P2 to P5) issued by the 3rd respondent contradicted the express terms of the Public Notice (Ext.P1) by imposing conditions not originally contemplated. The Court found that respondents failed to identify any regulatory authority that would permit interference with contractual terms between shipping lines and shippers/recipients through such notices. The Court emphasized that in the absence of explicit statutory or contractual authorization, administrative powers cannot be inferred that would restrict freedom of contract between parties. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned communications as legally flawed and contrary to the Public Notice, ruling that administrative notices cannot be interpreted to interfere with private contractual relationships. Appeal allowed.