IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.P.RAY MONDAY, THE 28TH MARCH 2011 / 7TH CHAITHRA 1933 WA.No. 156 of 2011() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.5828/2008 Dated 01/11/2010 & IN R.P. NO.1110/2010 IN WP(C) NO.5828/2008 DATED 05/01/2011 .................... APPELLANT(S): REVIEW PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS -------------------------------------------- 1. ALL INDIA MASTER FOREIGN GOING SHIP (RESTRICTED) CERTIFICATE HOLDERS ASSOCIATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, CAPT.SHERRY KUNJU, K.K.ROAD, PALLURUTHY, COCHIN - 682 006. 2. CHARAGHAT MAMMEN SHERRY KUNJU, CHARAGHAT HOUSE, K.K.ROAD, PALLURUTHY, COCHIN - 682 006. 3. P.S.UNNIKRISHNAN, HOUSE NO. 18/2145-A, VALUMMEL ROAD, THOPPUMPADY, ERNAKULAM. 4. K.A.RENJAN HOUSE, NO.26/1632-A, KATTUMPURATH, 'AMRUTHAM', MALIYAKKAL LANE, THEVARA, ERNAKULAM. 682 013. 5. SRI.GEORGE JOSEPH, VATHAPPALLIL HOUSE, KONGANDOOR P.O., AYARKUNNAM VIA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT - 686 564. BY ADV. FR.JOHNY THOTTAM SRI.JOHNSON GOMEZ RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS -------------------------------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF SHIPPING, ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS, NO.1, PARLIAMENTARY STREET, NEW DELHI- 110 001. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF SHIPPING, NAHAZ BHAVAN, W.H.MARG, MUMBAI - 400 001. ADV. SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN,ASST.S.G OF INDI FOR R1,2 MR.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR, ASST. SOLICITOR GENERAL THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & BHABANI PRASAD RAY, JJ. ---------------------------------- W.A.No.156 of 2011 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 28th day of March, 2011 J U D G M E N T Ramachandran Nair, J. This Writ Appeal is filed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge declining to relax the conditions imposed by the Director General of Shipping in the certificates issued to appellants 2 to 5 and the members of the first appellant Association. 2. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellants and learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing for the respondents. The official from the Ministry, Mr.J.V.S.Bharathi, Radio Inspector, who is familiar with the subject, also appeared and explained to us the basis of issuing the certificates impugned in the Writ Appeal. 3. The appellants are Skipper Gr.2 operating vessels mainly engaged in coastal shipping. Certificates of Competency as Masters of Ships issued to appellants contain restrictions such as limit of operation up to 20 Nautical Miles from the base port. The appellants' case is that the restriction is arbitrary and it affects their right of employment. The learned counsel appearing for the W.A.No.156/2011 -2- appellants submitted that some of the members of the first appellant Association are also operating from base ports outside India and they are operating in deep sea much beyond the limit prescribed in the licence issued to them by the Director General of Shipping. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, some of the appellants want to return to India and even those who are working in India want to have longer range of operation for their vessels. The specific contention is that many vessels under their captaincy have operational range beyond 20 Nautical Miles and the restriction hampers their employment and work. Their claim is that they should get licence for operating vessels up to 200 Nautical Miles from the base port. 4. After hearing both sides and the Ministry Official and after going through the judgment of the learned Single Judge, we do not think the Court can relax the conditions for issuing licence or interfere with the Director General of Shipping's authority to fix qualification for issuing licence. However, what we feel is that considering the nature of operation of vessels from the base port, probably 20 Nautical Miles will be a very limited area. Basically vessels of the type below 500 Gross Tonnage may be fishing trollers, supply vessels, store vessels, oceanographic vessels, seismic vessels etc. We feel the range of operation of the vessels of W.A.No.156/2011 -3- the type in which the appellants are entitled to be operated in the given case from a base port may be more than 20 Nautical Miles. The restriction should be liberalised so that the vessel in which a person employed can go upto the destination, which may be beyond 20 Nautical Miles. In other words, wherever relaxation is required to be made, we direct the Director General of Shipping to consider it within the limited ranges. The Writ Appeal is therefore disposed of leaving freedom to appellants 2 to 5 or to any of the members of the first appellant to apply for relaxation of the restrictions, which will be considered based on the vessel in which they are employed or offered to be employed and extension of area of operation required. The relaxation should not be made in gross violation of the international conventions or norms prescribed by the Director General of Shipping. Sd/- (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) Sd/- (BHABANI PRASAD RAY, JUDGE) The words “store vessels” occurring line No.9 of paragraph 4 (page 2) of the judgment dated 28/03/2011 in W.A.156/2011 are corrected and substituted as “standby vessel”, as per order dated 08/04/2011 in I.A.No.294/2011. Sd/- Registrar (Judicial) jg