Major Port Authorities and Tariff Powers in India: Authority, Procedures, Jurisdiction, and Penalties

Posted On - 20 September, 2025 • By - Athira T S

Executive Summary

India’s major ports are in the midst of one of the most significant regulatory transformations in decades. The Major Port Authorities Act, 2021 (“MPA Act”), in force since 3 November 2021, has replaced the erstwhile Major Port Trusts Act, 1963. At its core, this reform shifts India’s port governance model away from a heavily centralized tariff-fixing regime dominated by the Tariff Authority for Major Ports (TAMP), toward a board-driven, market-aligned framework under the Boards of Major Port Authorities, supported by an Adjudicatory Board for disputes.

By September 2025:

  • All twelve major ports function as Major Port Authorities, with their Boards empowered to fix tariffs for services and port assets.
  • The Adjudicatory Board has been formally notified (August 2025) and has assumed jurisdiction over disputes between ports, concessionaires, and users.
  • Appeals from the Adjudicatory Board lie directly to the Supreme Court of India, raising questions of efficiency and access.
  • The MPA Act codifies penalties, offences, and procedures for enforcement, signalling stronger compliance expectations.
  • This article provides a comprehensive examination of these developments in a manner suitable for clients, investors, and port users.

Evolution: From TAMP to MPA

1. The TAMP Regime under the 1963 Act

  • Established in 1997, TAMP was a statutory authority responsible for fixing tariffs for all major ports and their BOT (PPP) terminals.
  • Operated on a cost-plus methodology: tariffs were calculated on audited costs plus a reasonable return.
  • While transparent, this led to:
  • Inflexibility: ports could not rapidly adjust tariffs to market conditions.
  • Competitiveness issues: non-major ports (regulated by state maritime boards) often attracted more investment due to flexible pricing.
  • Excessive litigation: concessionaires often challenged TAMP’s determinations.

2. Reform Imperatives

Private sector participation required a predictable yet flexible tariff environment. Global landlord port models showed that board-driven tariffs subject to competition law and policy oversight could balance user protection with efficiency. The MPA Act was designed to:

  • Enhance port autonomy;
  • Streamline tariff procedures;
  • Provide a specialized dispute resolution body.

3. Transition Timeline

  • 2021: MPA Act notified, replacing Major Port Trusts Act.
  • 2021–2025: TAMP continued residual jurisdiction pending constitution of Adjudicatory Board.
  • August 2025: Adjudicatory Board notified; TAMP formally wound up.

Institutional Structure under the MPA Act

1. Major Port Authority Board Composition:

  • Chairperson & Deputy Chairperson (appointed by Central Govt).
  • Central Government nominees.
  • State Government nominee.
  • Two employee representatives.
  • Independent members with expertise in transport, finance, logistics.

Functions:

  • Fix tariffs (Sec. 34).
  • Manage land and assets (Sec. 22).
  • Enter into PPP concessions.
  • Frame regulations for service delivery.

2. Central Government

  • Retains power to issue policy directions binding on Boards.
  • Can override decisions in public interest (Sec. 111).
  • Issues tariff guidelines (e.g., Tariff Guidelines, 2021 for PPPs).

3. Adjudicatory Board

  • Presiding Officer (currently Justice Ashish J. Desai) + two members.
  • Functions (Sec. 54):
  • Resolve disputes between ports and PPP concessionaires.
  • Hear complaints from port users.
  • Review stressed PPP projects and recommend revival.
  • Appeals: Directly to the Supreme Court.

Tariff Powers and Procedures

1. Scope (Sec. 34, MPA Act): Boards may fix tariffs for:

  • Services performed by the port (pilotage, towage, bunkering, cargo handling).
  • Use of port assets (land leases, storage sheds, berths).
  • Vessel-related and cargo-related charges (port dues, wharfage, berth hire).

2. Guiding Principles

  • Must comply with policy directions from Central Govt.
  • Tariffs must be non-discriminatory.
  • Discounts and rebates permitted if transparent and non-preferential.

3. Procedure for Tariff Fixing

  1. Preparation of Draft Schedule: Finance and traffic departments prepare draft scales based on market benchmarks, costs, and competition analysis.
  2. Internal Committees: Many Boards constitute Tariff Committees including finance, traffic, and legal officers.
  3. Policy Compliance Check: Drafts compared with Ministry’s Tariff Guidelines (e.g., 2021 guidelines).
  4. Board Resolution: Final tariffs approved in a Board meeting.
  5. Publication: Tariffs published in the port gazette/website. Effective from a notified date.
  6. Review: Boards may review periodically (annually or bi-annually).

4. PPP Projects – Tariff Guidelines, 2021

  • For new PPP concessions, tariffs are bid-discovered.
  • Operator can offer discounts, but must comply with maximum ceilings set in the bid documents.
  • Provides certainty for lenders: tariffs are linked to concession agreement, not administrative revision.

5. Land Tariffs

  • Land is monetized via leases.
  • Procedure: independent valuer → recommendation → Board approval → transparent bidding/allotment.
  • Rentals revised periodically (usually every 5 years).

Dispute Resolution & Jurisdiction

  1. Adjudicatory Board: Exclusive forum for disputes between:
    • Ports and PPP operators;
    • Port users and authorities;
    • Legacy TAMP disputes.
  2. Procedures:
    • Complaint filed in writing;
    • Notices issued to respondents;
    • Hearings (oral/written);
    • Reasoned order passed.

2. Appeal Process

  • Appeals lie directly to the Supreme Court (Sec. 59).
  • Limitation period: 60 days (extendable for sufficient cause).
  • SC in Paradip Port Authority v. Paradeep Phosphates Ltd. (Aug 2025) recommended a special appellate tribunal due to technical complexity.

3. Bar of Civil Court Jurisdiction (Sec. 60)

  • Civil courts barred from entertaining matters covered by Adjudicatory Board.
  • High Courts may still exercise writ jurisdiction, but usually defer to statutory remedy.

Penalties & Offences

  1. General Penalty (Sec. 62): Contravention of Act/regulations punishable with fine; in certain cases, imprisonment.
  2. Corporate Offences (Sec. 63): Directors/managers liable if offence committed with their consent, connivance, or neglect. Defence: prove due diligence.
  3. Cognizance (Sec. 64): No court may take cognizance unless complaint is filed by an authorised officer of the Board.
  4. Good Faith Protection (Sec. 65): No suit or proceeding lies against Board members/employees for actions in good faith.

Illustrative Offences:

  • Non-payment of tariffs.
  • Obstruction of navigation/operations.
  • Damage/misuse of port property.
  • Violation of lease/licence terms.

Comparative Context

1. Non-Major Ports

  • Regulated by State Maritime Boards (e.g., Gujarat, Maharashtra).
  • Tariffs often market-driven, with only broad state oversight.
  • Competitive pressure on major ports to remain efficient.

2. Global Landlord Port Models

  • Singapore, Rotterdam: Port authority as regulator/landlord, operators set market tariffs subject to oversight.
  • India’s MPA Act is a step toward this, though central policy directions remain strong.

Practical Implications

  1. For Concessionaires: Tariff predictability improved for new PPPs (bid-discovered). Need to negotiate change in law and termination clauses carefully.
  2. For Lenders: Must diligence applicable tariff regime (legacy TAMP vs MPA Act). Tariff regime directly impacts project cashflows and DSCR.
  3. For Users: Greater transparency (published tariffs). Right to approach Adjudicatory Board for grievances.

Challenges Ahead

  1. Appeal Bottleneck: SC as sole appellate body is unsustainable; industry pressing for an Appellate Tribunal.
  2. Policy Override: Central Government retains broad powers; may impact autonomy.
  3. Transition Issues: Legacy concessions require careful navigation.
  4. Uniformity vs Competition: Ensuring tariffs remain competitive against non-major ports.

Conclusion

The MPA Act, 2021 has shifted Indian ports into a new regulatory paradigm:

  • Board-driven tariffs, subject to central policy;
  • Adjudicatory Board as dispute forum;
  • Penalties and offences codified;
  • Appeals directly to Supreme Court, with calls for a new Appellate Tribunal.

For stakeholders, the priorities are:

  • Understand the applicable tariff regime (legacy vs new).
  • Draft concessions with strong risk allocation clauses.
  • Monitor policy and judicial developments, especially regarding appeals.

India’s ports are at the cusp of a more autonomous, competitive, and investor-friendly environment—but success will depend on how effectively procedures are implemented, and whether an expert appellate mechanism emerges to handle technical disputes efficiently.

Contributed by : Amiy Kumar