- (1.) The union of Seamen, the petitioner herein had claimed various reliefs on behalf of the members of the family of eleven missing crews of the inland vessel called "M.V. Vasantha", which was alleged to have been hijacked by five Myanmerese sometimes in 1999. He has prayed that First Information Report should be lodged against the Harbour Master, Port Management 3oard, Port Blair. He has also claimed certain direction on the Government authorities in order to ensure safety of such inland vessels attempting to ply or negotiate the coastal area beyond the tidal waters. The other point he has Bed with regard to the claim for compensation payable to the members of tie family of those missing crews. He has also claimed that investigation in he matter should be expedited. The Union of India in its affidavit-in-opposition has virtually supported the claim of the petitioner except in relation to compensation and its liability with regard to the two vessels mentioned in the writ petition, being M.V. Tapi and M.V. Galathia.
(2.) Mr. A. K. Roy, the learned Sr. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Department had also suggested that though no affidavit-in-opposition has teen filed. Yet some safety devices are to be introduced and there should be some checks and balances in order to ensure compliance with the safety norms. He has made certain suggestions with regard to which we will be dealing with at appropriate stage.
(3.) Before dealing with this matter, we may refer to the earlier order passed by this Court in W.P. No. 133 of 1999 on 26th November, 1999. In the said order, this Court had directed that the investigation report of the Special Court, to which the matter was referred to, be submitted with utmost expedition and the Administration was directed to take consequential action on the oasis thereof. It had further directed, having regard to the serious nature of allegations made, that the Administration should deal with the matter with all seriousness and shall take steps in terms of the order within the time stipulated. It appears that the Special Court had submitted its report on 29th July, 2000. The Special Court had made certain recommendations in its report. Now it is being alleged that those recommendations are not being complied with. Neither the direction contained in the order dated 26th November, 1999 has since been complied with. However, Mr. Roy referred to an order dated 24th October, 2000, which, according to him, is in compliance of the order passed by this Court on 26th November, 1999 in W.P. No. 133 of 1999 and pursuant to the recommendations dated 29th July, 2000 made by the Special Court. According to him, in the said order, which is a Standing Order, certain restrictions were provided for. However, in his usual fairness, Mr. Roy points out that despite of good intention, those restrictions, which were provided for in the Standing Order, could not be enforced because of certain difficulties. He, therefore, seeks that there should be sufficient devises to ensure compliance with the Standing Order and according to him, the Court is expected to intervene.;