- (1.) The petitioners are the owners of MT RYSON, an oil tanker (hereafter the said vessel). They intended to break the said vessel at a dock of the Kolkata Port Trust (hereafter the KoPT); however, their request has not been accepted by the KoPT. Accordingly, prayers have been made for prohibiting the KoPT to obstruct breaking of the said vessel at the dock, commanding the KoPT to grant sanction for commencement of ship breaking activities as well as for direction on the KoPT to issue necessary instructions to its concerned departments to allow the petitioners break the said vessel.
(2.) I have heard Mr. Saha, learned advocate for the petitioners and Mr. Kar, learned advocate for the KoPT at length. The only question that arises for a decision on this writ petition is whether the petitioners' legal rights have been infringed by the KoPT or not.
(3.) For the purpose of deciding the fate of the writ petition, it would be necessary to trace the genesis of the dispute. It is noticed that : a) The said vessel at the material time was owned by M/s Vivada Inland Waterways Limited (hereafter Vivada). By its letter dated February 12, 2013 addressed to the Deputy Dock Manager (Shipping) of the KoPT, Vivada requested for allotment of berth at dock no. 19 from February 12, 2013 for hot work repair, the likely duration whereof would be around 3 to 5 days. It was further conveyed thereby that should the said vessel require huge repairs, Vivada would consider selling the same for demolition/scrap. Vivada enclosed with the said letter various documents including copy of 'Gas Free Certificate for Man Entry'. b) The 'Gas Free Certificate for Man Entry' referred to in the said letter is a certificate dated February 11, 2013 issued at 16.30 hours by the Deputy Controller of Explosives, East Circle, Kolkata, in favour of Vivada in pursuance of Rule 43(c) of the Petroleum Rules, 2002. The footnote stipulated that the certificate is valid for 48 hours from the time of issue and only if the conditions are remaining unchanged. c) Another certificate i.e. 'Gas Free Certificate for Hot Work' dated February 13, 2013 issued at 15.30 hours by the same officer of the Explosives Department in respect of the said vessel, valid for 48 hours from the time of issue and only if conditions are remaining unchanged, is also on record. d) Prior to Vivada seeking permission from the KoPT for berthing of the said vessel for repairs, the first petitioner on February 7, 2013 had confirmed to Vivada regarding purchase of the said vessel for valuable consideration. A day later, the first petitioner represented to the Director, Marine Department of the KoPT (hereafter the Director) that it had purchased the said vessel for demolition at a dock of the KoPT and enclosed the copy of the memorandum of agreement for reference. In the very letter, the first petitioner observed that the owner of the said vessel would provide it with 'Gas Free Certificate for Man Entry' and 'Gas Free Certificate for Hot Work' from the Explosives Department and prayed for permission to allow the said vessel to be brought at the dock at the earliest. Importantly, licence was issued by the KoPT to the first petitioner for ship breaking as per its bylaws valid from February 11, 2013 to February 10, 2014. e) Be that as it may, the petitioners to buttress their claim seek to draw support from an endorsement made by the Superintendent (Permit and Licence) of the KoPT on a copy of their letter dated February 18, 2013. By the said letter, the petitioner had requested to arrange issuance of daily dock permits for 130 men and for 8 lorries for access to dock no. 19 to facilitate the process of dismantling and the Superintendent had, by the said endorsement, directed issuance of daily permits. According to the petitioners, they had paid the appropriate fees for obtaining permission; and licence having been issued after the Dock Master (Port) had approved the application for issuance of daily dock permit, there could be no reason to stall the process of breaking of the said vessel. f) The immediate cause of action for moving the writ petition appears in paragraph 15 thereof, wherein it is pleaded that to the petitioners' utter shock and disbelief, the Director had called them on February 22, 2013 and ordered removal of the said vessel from the dock allegedly on the ground that the same is an oil tanker and cannot be permitted to be broken without the prior certification from the Explosives Department. The petitioners, before the Director, had relied upon the decisions of the Supreme Court RESEARCH FOUNDATION FOR SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND NATURAL RESOURCE POLICY V/S UNION OF INDIA, 2005 10 SCC 510 and (2007) 8 SCC 883, but in a most illegal and arbitrary manner, the Director insisted on removal of the said vessel from the dock. Such insistence of the Director prompted the petitioners to approach the Court with the instant writ petition seeking relief as noticed above.;