IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 2454 of 2011(F)


1. ESSAR SHIPPING PORTS AND LOGISTICS LTD.
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. MEMBER SECRETARY, LAKSHADWEEP POLLUTION
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR

                For Respondent  :SRI.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,SC,LAKSHADWEEP ADMN

The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

 Dated :03/03/2011

 O R D E R
                       P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J.
                          ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                          W.P (C) No. 2454 OF 2011
                          ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                     Dated, this the 3rd day of March, 2011

                                      JUDGMENT

The prayers in the Writ Petition are as follows :

i. to call for the records leading to Exts. P1, P3, P5, P6, P7 and P9 and to quash the same by issuance of a writ of certiorari or any other similar writ, or order.

ii. to issue a writ of mandamus or any such direction, writ or order, directing the respondents to consider the detailed submissions of the petitioner and the various options put forth through Exhibits P2, P4, P8 and P10 and to grant the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of personal hearing before proceeding further with the same.

iii. to issue an interim directions staying all proceedings pursuant to Exts. P1, P3, P5, P6, P7 and P9 iv. to grant to the petitioner such other incidental reliefs including the costs of these proceedings.

2. The respondent has filed a statement pointing out that the idea and understanding of the petitioner is quite wrong and misconceived and that the respondent is having every right to proceed against the petitioner and the concerned vessel by name ' M.V. Nand Aparajitha', which ran aground at the shores of the island and caused much damage to the peaceful living of the inhabitants of the island. It is stated that the demand made to salvage the vesseI did not result any fruitful event and that there is every chance to have the sea polluted, which in turn is much adversely to  W.P. (C) No. 2454 of 2011 2 affect the inhabitants of the islands who depend upon the sea water to have their drinking purpose and other daily needs, after desalination in the desalination plants set up in this regard.

3. It is brought to light from the pleadings and proceedings that because of the apprehended threat to the 'flora and fauna' including the coral reaves, the fuel from the vessel was sought to be taken out to such other places to avoid oil spillage and so also, part of the cargo has been removed as well. It is stated that, the petitioner has not acceded to the demand made by the respondent with regard to the salvage operation and is seeking to evade the responsibility, stating that, the vessel could be treated as an 'abandoned' one and that there is no threat of any pollution.

4. The learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent submits that, since nothing was turned out in positive from the part of the petitioner in spite of various notices and reminders including Ext. P9, a complaint was preferred under the relevant provisions of the Water (Prevention furtherance to issuance of Ext. P9, a complaint was preferred under the relevant provisions of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1974 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Amini and cognizance was also taken on 24.01.2011. It was after knowing the above fact, that the petitioner has preferred this Writ Petition, submits the learned standing counsel for the respondent.

W.P. (C) No. 2454 of 2011 3

5. In the course of the proceedings, the petitioner filed I.A. No. 3214 of 2011, to implead the Administrator as well, pointing out that, the aground vessel in fact is liable to be treated as a "wreck" as defined under Section 3 (58) of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958. It is also stated that the action to be taken for salvage of the 'wreck' is as provided under Section 391 (1) of the said Act and the that the Central Government has already appointed the Administrator as the competent authority in this regard. The contentions of the petitioner in this regard are sought to be opposed on behalf of the respondent, by the learned standing counsel.

6. Considering the turn of events, this Court does not propose to go into the disputed questions of facts; more so, in view of the fact that the matter is pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Amini. In the said circumstances, the petitioner is free to approach the concerned Magistrate's Court or to challenge the said proceedings in accordance with law, by way of appropriate proceedings.

Reserving the rights and liberties as above, interference is declined and the Writ Petition is dismissed.

P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd