M/S Phoniex Seaways Logistics And ANR v. The Honble Lt.Governor And ORS.

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION [CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR] PRESENT: THE HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA WPA/303/2025 M/S PHOENIX SEAWAYS LOGISTICS AND ANOTHER ... PETITIONERS VS.

THE HON'BLE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR AND OTHERS ... RESPONDENTS For the petitioners : Mr. Gopala Binnu Kumar For the respondents : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Reserved on : December 18, 2025 Judgment on : December 19, 2025 HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.

1.

The petitioner No. 1 is a registered partnership firm and the petitioner No. 2 claims to be the managing partner of the said firm. The petitioners have prayed for setting aside the orders dated April 05, 2025 and June18, 2025 both passed by the 5th respondent and for issuance of a mandamus directing the respondent Nos. 5 to 7 to conduct the survey of vessel namely M.V. Blue Lagoon of the petitioner firm and to issue necessary certificate to allow the petitioner firm to obtain renewal of licence from the competent authority for the purpose of plying the said vessel in the tourist destination i.e. Ross Island and North Bay, Sri Vijaya Puram within the Inland Vessel limit.

2.

The petitioner firm purchased a fishing boat sometimes in the year 2015 and thereafter started to rebuild the said boat as a passenger vessel under the supervision of IRS Surveyor. When the petitioner firm was carrying on the work of rebuilding the said boat, the Andaman and Nicobar Islands Inland Vessel Rules, 2016 (for short, '2016 Rules') came into force. The vessel was rebuilt as a passenger vessel and the survey certificate was issued by the Inland Vessel Chief Surveyor on November 14, 2018.

3.

The certificate of registration for the said vessel was issued which was valid up to January 05, 2019. After registration of the said vessel the petitioner started to ply the same within Inland Vessel limit having capacity of 110 passengers and 5 number of crew members. After considering the survey report issued by the Chief Surveyor, the licence of the petitioner firm to ply the vessel was renewed from time to time till July 26, 2020.

4.

In the meantime, COVID-19 pandemic hit the entire world and as a consequence of the same nationwide lockdown were imposed and the petitioner could not ply the said vessel. The petitioner firm approached the concerned authorities on and from the last part of the year 2020 for the purpose of conducting periodic survey of the said vessel to enable the petitioner firm to ply the vessel for tourism purpose. The grievance of the petitioner is that the authorities sat tight over the matter and did not take any steps for conducting such survey.

5.

Petitioner thereafter filed a writ petition being WPA/671/2024 which was disposed of by an order dated December 06, 2024 by directing the Chief Port Administrator, Port Management Board to depute a competent surveyor to survey the vessel and to communicate the survey report to the petitioner immediately thereafter.

6.

Petitioner alleges that in spite of several requests being made by the petitioner to conduct the survey, no steps were taken to conduct the survey of vessel of the firm in spite of the order passed by this Hon'ble Court and thereafter, an order dated April 05, 2025 was passed by the respondent No. 5 stating that the survey of the vessel could not be conducted as the petitioner firm failed to furnish details about the vessel.

7.

Thereafter, the petitioner submitted several representations and ultimately the 5th respondent passed an order dated June 18, 2025 by directing the petitioner to comply with the statutory requirement as per the provisions of Rule 19(b) of the 2016 Rules to facilitate the survey of the vessel.

8.

Being aggrieved by the orders dated April 05, 2025 and June 18, 2025, the petitioner has approached this Court. 9.

Mr. Gopala Binnu Kumar, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner contended that the keel of the said vessel was laid prior to coming into existence of the 2016 Rules and as such the vessel to be treated as an existing vessel. He contended that the petitioner firm

immediately after purchase of fishing boat, rebuild the said vessel under supervision of IRS Surveyor under the Indian Vessel Rules and fulfilled all the safety requirements in terms of the said Rules. 10.

He further contended that the petitioner has not sought for any exemption under the 2016 Rules to ply the said vessel and, therefore, the exemption clause is not applicable in the case of the petitioner. He also contended that Andaman and Nicobar Administration promulgated a guidelines on January 7, 2022 and on the basis of the said guidelines the vessel of the petitioner was found to have fulfilled all the parameters.

11.

Mr. Gopala Binnu Kumar, learned advocate for the petitioner contended that the Rule 19(b) of the 2016 Rules are applicable to the vessels which were built after the inception of the 2016 Rules and the said Rules cannot be applied in the case of Existing Vessel. He further contended that the initial survey pertaining to the vessel of the petitioner has already been carried out and the vessel was put in use and the petitioner has only applied for the periodical survey and the embargo laid down under Rule 19 and 4 (b) of the 2016 Rules cannot be attracted to the case of the petitioner. 12.

By placing reliance upon the provisions laid down under Rule 24 read with Rule 21 (ii)(d), Mr. Gopala Binnu Kumar, contended that the periodic survey of category B vessel would be conducted by the Chief Surveyor.

13.

Mr. Rakesh Kumar, learned advocate appearing for the respondent Administration seriously disputed the submissions made by Mr. Gopala Binnu Kumar. He contended that as per Rule 4(i)(b) of the 2016 Rules, an exemption for a period of 36 months was granted to the existing vessels. He further contended that the Andaman and Nicobar Administration vide Administration Orders dated January 23, 2019 and December 30, 2019 have clearly specified that the vessel not built under Class will not be granted permission to ply beyond January 5, 2021. He further contended that the since the petitioner failed to submit the necessary documents as sought for by the respondent authorities, the survey could not be done. 14.

Heard learned advocates for the respective parties and perused materials placed.

15.

Rule 4(i)(b) of the 2016 Rules, states that the existing vessel the keels of which were laid down before the entry into force of these Rules are exempted for a period of thirty six (36) months subject to certification of passenger/cargo capacity by classification society/DG(shipping) determined through the approved intact stability booklet/plans and periodic annual surveys. 16.

Rule 3 (ab) of the 2016 Rules defines "Existing Vessel" to mean a vessel the keel of which is laid down before coming into force of this Rules i.e. the 2016 Rules.

17.

Rule 3(ab) defines "Inland Vessel" to mean a mechanically propelled vessel which ordinarily plies on inland water.

18.

Rule 2(i) deals with the applicability of the Rules to inland vessels and clauses (a) to (d) lays down the vessels / ship which are excluded from the application of the Rules.

19.

Rule 2(ii) states that all existing vessels shall, as a rule, comply with the requirements existing prior to coming into force of these Rules. Where no such requirements are applicable vessels shall comply with these Rules to the extent the Administration considers being reasonable and practicable. Existing vessels that undergo replacement of equipment or outfitting related thereto shall comply with the requirements specified in these Rules so far as it is considered reasonable and practicable by the Administration. 20.

On a bare reading of Rule 2(ii), this Court is of the considered view that a discretion is vested upon the Administration to consider which of the requirements specified in the 2016 Rules shall have to be complied with by the Existing Vessel.

21.

Rule 4 empowers the Administration to exempt from the application of all or part of the Rules. Rule 4(b) deals with exemption from the application of all or part of the Rules with regard to Existing Vessels.

22.

In exercise of powers vested under Rule 4 of the 2016 Rules the Administration Orders being Nos. 214 and 3821 dated January 23, 2019 and December 30, 2019 were issued.

23.

2016 Rules came into force on January 6, 2016. Rule 4(b) granted exemption to Existing Vessels for a period of 36 months

subject to certain conditions specified therein. Further, exemption were granted to the Existing Vessels by Administration Order dated January 23, 2019 till January 05, 2020 on case to case basis on certain conditions and a last exemption was granted till January 05, 2021 by Administration Order dated December 30, 2019 subject to certain conditions. Both the aforesaid Administration Orders specifically stated that no extension of any kind shall be granted to the existing vessels not built under class beyond January 05, 2021. 24.

No material has been produced by the petitioner to show that any further exemption to the Existing Vessels were granted by Administration Orders.

25.

Mr. Gopala Binnu Kumar would contend that the petitioner has not applied for exemption.

26.

The question that arises is whether the owner of an Existing Vessel can claim that the Administration cannot impose the provision of 2016 Rules to an Existing Vessel. The answer to such question should be in the negative as it is well settled that a Mandamus cannot be issued to the respondent authorities to exercise its discretion in a particular manner to suit the requirement of the petitioner.

27.

2016 Rules came into force on January 6, 2016. It is not the case of the petitioner that the vessel in question falls within the exclusion Clauses (a) to (d) of Rule 2(i). The vessel of the petitioner though falls under the category of "Existing Vessel" shall comply with

the requirements specified in the Rules as far as it is considered reasonable and practicable by the Administration. 28.

Rule 19(b) of the 2016 Rules states as to how the Inland Vessels under category B are to be built and maintained. It states that the Inland Vessels are to be built under the survey of classification society who is a member of IACS and maintained through periodical surveys under the authority of Surveyors appointed under Rule 21(ii).

29.

Rule 20 deals with the types of survey that every vessel to which the provisions of the Act and the 2016 Rules apply shall be subjected to. Initial survey is the survey that the vessel shall be subjected to before the same is put in service and the periodical survey is done once in every twelve months.

30.

Mr. Gopala Binnu Kumar would contend that the initial survey was done when the vessel was put into use and now only the periodical survey is to be made.

31.

The provisions of Rule 19(b) and 20 are applicable to all Inland Vessels under category B since the coming into force of the 2016 Rules. However, certain exemptions were granted to the Existing Vessels for a period of 36 months under Rule 4(b) subject to certain conditions.

32.

It is not in dispute that the Existing Vessel of the petitioner which falls under Category B Inland Vessel was put into use after the coming into force of 2016 Rules but within a period of 36 months

from the date of coming into force of the 2016 Rules upon fulfillment of conditions laid down in Rule 4(b). Thus the vessel in question was put into service within the exempted period under Rules 4(b). The period of such exemption was extended from time to time till January 05, 2021 vide Administration orders dated January 23, 2019 and December 30, 2019. No material has been produced before this Court to show that the period of exemption was extended after January 05, 2021.

33.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court holds that the applicability of the provisions of Rule 19(b) in case of Existing Vessels was only deferred till January 05, 2021 in view of Rule 4(b) and the subsequent Administration Orders and the provisions laid down in Rule 19(b) became applicable to Existing Vessels after January 05, 2021.

34.

Rule 19(b) states that B category Inland Vessel is to be built under the survey of classification society who is a member of IACS. Rule 20(ii) lays down that the initial survey aims at ensuring certain factors. After going through Clauses (a) to (f) thereof, this Court is of the considered view that the same is aimed at the safety, stability, pollution etc.

35.

Though the petitioner claims that the vessel was put to use after initial survey but no material has been produced by the petitioner to show that an initial survey as indicated under Rule 19(b) read with Rule 209ii) was done before the vessel was put to use. On

the contrary it is the case of the petitioner that Rule 19(b) is not applicable to the petitioner as the same is an Existing Vessel which was rebuilt and the same was not built after coming into force of 2016 Rules.

36.

Rule 19 (b) of the 2016 Rules deals with category B vessels. The expression "such vessels" used in Rule 19 (b) refers to category B Inland Vessel. The said Rules does not make any distinction between Existing Vessel and the vessels the keel of which were laid down after coming into force of the 2016 Rules. The expression "built" used therein would also include the act of rebuilding of Existing Vessel. 37.

Administration Order No. 214 dated January 23, 2019 was issued by the Andaman and Nicobar Administration in exercise of power vested under Rule 4 of the 2016 Rules. The Lieutenant Governor (Administrator), Andaman and Nicobar Islands was pleased to order that the extension of plying permission of the existing Inland Vessel not built under Class and registered under the said Rules beyond January 05, 2019, subject to certain conditions. One of the conditions indicated therein was that no extension of time shall be granted to the existing Inland Vessel not built under Class beyond January 5, 2021.

38.

In continuation of the Administration's order No. 214 dated January 23, 2019 and based on the recommendation contained in Indian Register of Shipping (IRS), Port Blair dated December 11, 2019, the Lieutenant Governor (Administrator), Andaman and

Nicobar Islands passed an order of extension of plying permission of the existing Inland Vessel not built under Class for further period of one year from January 06, 2020 to January 05, 2021, in terms of Rule 4 of the 2016 Rules subject to certain conditions and one of such condition was that no extension of any kind shall be granted to the existing Inland Vessels not built under Class beyond January 05, 2021.

39.

It is the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner is not required to obtain a certificate of built under Class from a classification society (member of IACS) as the vessel of the petitioner being an existing vessel, the provision of Rule 4(b) shall not be applicable. The petitioner placed reliance upon a Miscellaneous Report of the Indian Register of Shipping dated January 27, 2020, in support of his contusion that the vessel is fit to ply within the Inland Vessel limit.

40.

After going through said report, this Court finds that the surveyor attended the vessel at the request of the owner towards the joint hull survey along with the Andaman and Nicobar Administration IV Surveyor as per guideline given in the Andaman and Nicobar Administration order No. 3821 dated December 30, 2019. Thus, the applicability of the Administration order No. 3821 dated December 30, 2019 as well as Rule 4(b) cannot be denied by the petitioner. As observed hereinbefore that the said Administration order dated December 30, 2019 was issued in terms of Rule 4 of the 2016 Rules.

41.

This Court is, therefore, not inclined to accept the contention of the petitioner that Rule 4 of the 2016 Rules is not applicable to the case of the petitioner. It further appears from the Miscellaneous Report dated January 27, 2020 that the owner had declared/stated that the vessel shall be classed or decommissioned by January 05, 2021.

42.

Administration order No. 214 dated January 23, 2019 read with the order No. 3821 dated December 30, 2019 in no uncertain terms state that extension of any kind shall not be granted to the existing Inland Vessel not built under Class beyond January 05, 2021.

43.

Mr. Gopala Binnu Kumar, learned advocate for the petitioner placed strong reliance upon the guidelines dated January 07, 2022 and contended that the IV Surveyor has carried out inspection and the vessel has fulfilled all parameters as required for plying the vessel.

44.

Records reveals that Chief Port Administrator, by letter dated April 16/18, 2022 addressed to the Deputy Secretary (Shipping), Andaman and Nicobar Administration, Secretariat, Port Blair on the subject compliance of IV Rules by three existing steel hull/FRP inland vessels namely MV Blue Lagoon, Silver Jet and Mark Marina. In the said letter it was stated that those vessels were examined physically in detail and found fit to ply for safe passenger service on clearance of annual passenger survey by IV Surveyors.

45.

The Engineer and IV Surveyor of the Port Management Board by a letter dated May 05, 2022 addressed to various authorities including the Deputy Secretary (Shipping), Andaman and Nicobar Administration, Port Blair denied the contents of para "these vessels were examined physically in detail and found fit to ply for safe passenger service on clearance of annual passenger survey by IV Surveyors" of the letter dated April 16/18, 2022 of the Chief Port Administrator send to the Deputy Secretary (Shipping). The said Surveyor further stated that he had not received any written direction from Chief Surveyor for physical verification existing non class built vessels namely, Blue Lagoon, Silver Jet and MV Mark Marina and he has also not received any order of the competent authority after the Administration Order dated January 23, 2019 and December 30, 2019 as amended guidelines.

46.

It was further stated in the said letter that any existing vessel intended to operate beyond January 05, 2021 has to be brought under classification society i.e. IRS or any other IACS member as per IV Rules.

47.

The petitioner intends to ply the said vessel.

The Administration Order No. 214 dated January 23, 2019 December 30, 2019 which were issued with the approval of the Hon'ble Lieutenant Governor, Andaman and Nicobar Islands towards the extension of plying permission of the existing vessel from the period from January 05, 2019 to January 05, 2021 specifically states that no extension of

any kind shall be granted to the existing Inland Vessel not built under Class beyond January 05, 2021.

48.

That apart, the Guidelines dated January 07, 2022 cannot override the provision of 2016 Rules.

49.

This Court, therefore, holds that the Certificate of Built under class from a classification society is a sinequan for the purpose of conducting a survey before allowing plying of the Inland Vessel. 50.

It appears from the record that the petitioner was asked to produce the Certificate of Built under class as per provision of the Rule 19(b) of the 2016 Rules. The petitioner did not produce such certificate before the authorities.

51.

Rule 19(b) states that category B vessel are to be built under the survey of classification society who is member of IACS and maintained through periodical surveys under the authority of Surveyors appointed under Rule 21(ii).

52.

This Court is not inclined to accept the contention of the petitioner that the Rule 19(b) is not applicable to the existing vessel only on the ground that the said rules uses the expression "built" and "not rebuilt". The expression built used in Rule 19(b) would imply that after coming into force of the 2016 Rules, category B vessels have to be built under survey of classification society who is the member of IACS and maintained through periodical surveys under the authority of Surveyors appointed under Rule 21(ii).

53.

The existing vessel of the petitioner enjoyed the exemption under Rule 4(b) of the 2016 Rules and was allowed to ply the said vessel till January 05, 2021. After having enjoyed the benefit of such exemption, the petitioner cannot be permitted to turn around and contend that the petitioner is not under an obligation to produce the Certificate of Built under Class.

54.

By the orders impugned dated April 05, 2025 and June 18, 2025 passed by the respondent No. 5, this Court finds that the petitioner was only directed to produce the Certificate of Built under Class from a classification society to facilitate the survey of the vessel. To the mind of this Court, the petitioner is obliged to produce such certificate from a classification society prior to survey of the vessel.

55.

For the aforesaid reason, this Court is of the considered view that the orders impugned dated April 05, 2025 and June 18, 2025 passed by the respondent No. 5 do not call for any interference. 56.

Accordingly, WPA/303/2025 stands dismissed.

57.

There shall be, however, no order as to costs. 58.

Urgent Photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, shall be granted to the parties as expeditiously as possible, upon compliance of all formalities.

( HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J. )