1 wp 1311-2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1311 OF 2011 Petaros Valneo & Ors. ...Petitioners VS. Mr.Chandrakant Gangadhar Naik & Anr....Respondents Mr.A.P. Mundargi, Senior Counsel with Mr.Niranjan Mundargi for the Petitioner. Dr.F.R. Shaikh, APP for the State. CORAM : B.H. MARLAPALLE & U.D. SALVI, JJ. JUNE 16, 2011 P.C. :- 1 We have perused the Preliminary Inquiry Report of “Marine Casualty of Collision between M.V. NORDLAKE and Indian Naval Vessel F42 on 30.1.2011” submitted by Capt.S.K. Singhal, Nautical Surveyor and Inquiry Officer of Mercantile Marine Department, Mumbai, and as per the said report dated 24th May, 2011, the incident occurred due to the casual 2 wp 1311-2011 attitude/negligence of all the concerned including the duty personnel of VTMS at Mumbai Port/JNPT/Navy, both the JNPT pilots on Nordlake/Sea Eagle, and the ship Master of Nordlake as well as F42. The collision was the direct result of inexperience of both the JNPT pilots of M.V. Nordlake and M.V. Sea Eagle. The control station at JNPT/Mumbai Port Trust/Navy did not carry out the task of managing the shipping movements even though the control station/VTMS is fitted with monitors to track the shipping traffic and VHF to monitor the communications and moreover, the proper evaluation of the information and situation was not done at the VTMS. The report has recommended that the formal inquiry may not be necessary as there is no loss of life and no damage to the environment. The Report further recommends that the Port may take suitable stringent measures so that the safety concerns should not be allowed to override the commercial concerns and it may device suitable contingency plan in order to handle 3 wp 1311-2011 emergencies in an efficient manner. The report also suggests to call upon the Port Management to review the system of recruitment of marine pilots and VTMS operators. 2 As per Dr.Shaikh, the learned APP, investigation by the police is still necessary and on the basis of the preliminary Inquiry report submitted and referred to hereinabove, the investigation cannot be stopped. 3 If that be so, we are satisfied that there is no reason to continue to impound the passport of the petitioner no.1 and it must be returned to him, at the earliest. 4 Mr.Mundargi, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners stated that the petitioner no.1 will stay back for another week at Mumbai though he is a foreigner and he has spent about six months already 4 wp 1311-2011 in Mumbai, so that the Investigating Officer may be assisted in recording his statement in the ongoing investigation. 5 We, therefore, direct that the petitioner no. 1 will report to the Investigating Officer from 16th June, 2011 to 20th June, 2011 between 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. and on 20th June, 2011, his passport shall be returned to him by the Investigating Officer before 5.00 p.m. and by completing the requirements as were followed for petitioner nos.2 and 4 on the earlier occasion. 6 The petition is disposed off in terms of the above directions. (U.D. SALVI, J) (B.H. MARLAPALLE, J)