TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (8) TMI 1147
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....application dated 21.10.2016 to first respondent, that the application was for setting up a CFS at Sendrambakkam, that application was being processed, that on 28.11.2016, first respondent called upon writ petitioner to furnish certain documents, that writ petitioner submitted documents on 14.3.2017, that first respondent sent another communication dated 24.4.2017 seeking some more certificates, that writ petitioner submitted / replied to the same on 4.5.2017, that letter dated 29.9.2017 was sent to writ petitioner by first respondent stating that application of the petitioner was discussed in an 'Inter Ministerial Committee' ('IMC' for brevity) meeting held on 19.9.2017, that the request of the writ petitioner was deferred owing to a decision that already a large number of CFSs are functioning in Chennai, that thereafter also, there was correspondence between writ petitioner and first respondent and ultimately, first respondent sent a communication dated 23.4.2018 enclosing minutes of IMC meeting held on 10.4.2018, wherein it was inter-alia mentioned that a policy decision to encourage 'Direct Port Delivery' ('DPD' for brevity) and 'Direct Port ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 26.6.2019 and said proceedings / order reads as follows : "Mr.P.Giridharan, learned counsel on record for writ petitioner in these two writ petitions is before this Court. 2. Learned counsel submits that subject matter of these two writ petitions is an application by writ petitioner for setting up a 'Container Freight Station' ('CFS' for brevity) at No.7, Redhills Road, Sendrambakkam Village, Thiruvottiyur Taluk, Thiruvallor District, Chennai - 600 052 and an application by fourth respondent for shifting the existing CFS from Madhavaram to Vallur Village, Ponneri Taluk, Tiruvallur District. 3. According to learned counsel for writ petitioner, decision with regard to aforesaid application of fourth respondent was earlier taken by first respondent and it has now been taken by the second respondent albeit in a 'Inter-Ministerial Committee' ('IMC' for brevity) Meeting. 4. Vide proceedings dated 23.04.2018, fourth respondent's application for shifting its CFS was rejected by holding that such an application has to be treated as a fresh application for setting up a CFS. Subsequently, according to writ petitioner, on....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ity, para (i) (3) of proceedings/decision/order dated 06.02.2019, which is kept in abeyance reads as follows: 3 Shifting of CFS by M/s.Continental Warehousing Corporation (Nhava Sheva) Ltd. from Madhavaram, Chennai to Vallur Village, Ponneri Taluk, Thiruvallur District. The Developer informed that the reason for change of location of their CFS is that Corporation of Chennai has expanded its limits and the CFS facility survey number is falling under residential zone now. Further, Corporation of Chennai has constructed another Mofussil Bus Stand at about a kilometer from the existing CFS facility, which once fully functional, may create huge traffic related problems that may affect operational efficiency of the CFS. Member from Logistics opined that such proposal should be treated as fresh proposal and traffic analysis of the new location needs to be provided for any further decision. However, other members of IMC viewed the proposal as merely that of shifting from one location to another. In view of this, IMC accorded 'in principle approval' to the proposal for shifting the existing CFS from Madhavarm, Chennai to Vallur Village, Ponneri Taluk, Thiruvallur District. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... e)Any other information considered relevant by the second respondent. List this matter on 25.07.2019." 10 In response to aforesaid 17.7.2019 proceedings, a copy of written instructions to standing counsel of official respondents was placed before this court and the same reads as follows : "a)There are 35 CFSs and 2 CWCs are functioning under this Jurisdiction. Out of them 2 CFSs are directly linked with Kattupalli Port remaining 33CFSs and 2 CWCs are directly linked with Chennai Port. However, all the CFSs and CWCs are handling containers of all Ports through Transhipment Module. b)The Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) is targeting to raise the Direct Port Delivery of the total volumes. In such cases movement of containers to CFSs/CWCs would come down and their business would definitely come down. Moreover, even now 10 CFSs and two CWCs are performing very low business when compare to other CFSs. c)The number of CFSs referred at above includes the CFS which is now functioning at Madhavaram and figuring as 4th respondent of the subject Writ Petition. d)The tentative date of the next agenda for granting permission ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... location. 15 In this backdrop, this court has no difficulty in accepting the argument that the nature of applications of writ petitioner and fourth respondent are different as one is for a new CFS and the other is for shifting the existing CFS. This court also notices that the location is one in which official respondents are neither particular nor indifferent. Therefore, it boils down to commercial interests of writ petitioner and fourth respondent. 16 This court has also noticed that it is the stated position of official respondents that shifting of CFS from Madhavaram by fourth respondent is subject to the condition that fourth respondent will close down the existing operations in Madhavaram. Therefore, if the request of fourth respondent for shifting is acceded to, the number of CFSs will not increase. On the contrary, if the application of writ petitioner and their request for opening a new CFS is acceded to, the number of CFSs will increase at least by one. 17 Be that as it may, what is of utmost relevance is the reason that has been given for rejecting writ petitioner's proposal to set up a new CFS. According to 6.2.2019 minutes of IMC, the reason is that it....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ication of writ petitioner which was made on 21.10.2016 was under active consideration of official respondents by calling for documents vide several correspondence. Another more important reason is, official respondents have not denied or disputed writ petitioner's averment that writ petitioner did not get any intimation calling upon them to attend the meeting on 6.2.2019. Therefore, this court deems it appropriate that writ petitioner is given an opportunity to attend the ensuing meeting. 19 Writ petitioner also made one more submission that another entity which goes by the name Seahorse CFS applied for a new CFS at the very location where fourth respondent now intends to shift, application of Seahorse CFS was rejected, but Seahorse CFS is now the lessor qua fourth respondent. In other words, it is writ petitioner's submission that Seahorse whose application was rejected has now camouflaged its application and has come in in the garb of shifting by taking umbrage under fourth respondent. In other words, it is writ petitioner's say that Seahorse is riding on fourth respondent's back and attempting to gallop past writ petitioner in setting up a new CFS. This, i....