Manoj Paul v. Union Territory And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** WPA(P)/8/2023 IA No.CAN/2/2024, CAN/3/2024 Manoj Paul Vs.

Union Territory and others Mr. Manoj Paul ... petitioner (in person) [on virtual mode] Mr. Shatadru Chakraborty, Sr.Adv.

Mr. Dibesh Dwived ... for the respondent nos.1 & 3 Mr. Md. Tabraiz ... for the respondent no.4 February 26, 2025 [SR] Item No.1 1.

Pursuant to the direction made by this Court on February 24, 2025, the petitioner has served his affidavit-in-reply to both the oppositions, one being filed by the respondent no.1 and 3 and the other one being filed by the respondent no.4. The petitioner has also sent his affidavits-in-reply at the official email ID of the Circuit Bench. We have taken out the print out of the affidavits-in-reply, which have been sent at the official email ID of this Circuit Bench and the same are kept on record. 2.

Additionally, Mr. Shatadru Chakraborty, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 1 and 3 and Mr. Md.Tabraiz, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.4 also provided copies of the replies, they have received on their respective email.

3.

The petitioner has undertaken to transmit the original affidavits-in-reply before the Circuit Bench by day after tomorrow (28.02.2025) when the same shall be taken on record.

4.

However, the petitioner has agreed to proceed with the hearing of the writ petition on the basis of the affidavit-in-reply sent by him through email to the learned advocates for the two sets of respondents and transmitted to the Circuit Bench through its email ID.

5.

The writ petition has been taken up for consideration. 6.

The instant writ petition has been filed with the following prayers:- "In view of the facts & circumstances stated above, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may in public interest be pleased to:- I.

Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing a thorough SIT/CBI investigation into the over-invoicing in leasing/hiring of sea unworthy Coral Queen Ship due to the collusion by SCI. Commissioner-cum-secretary(Shipping) & the company M/s CASTLE SHIPS PRIVATE LTD in order to cheat the poor islanders of remote A & N Islands, the tax authorities and also committed in violation of various laws.

II.

Issue or pass any writ, direction or order to the respondents seeking details of its voyages in the Port Blair-mainland sector. Or seeking reason for not allowing the ship in the Port Blair-mainland sector.

III.

Issue or pass any writ, direction or order to the respondents seeking details of payments made by

the A & N Administration to the SCI or the company M/s CASTLE SHIPS PRIVATE LTD.

IV.

Issue or pass any writ, direction or order to the respondents seeking details of payment made by the A & N Administration to the Lakshadweep Administration to acquire M.V.Bharat Seema boat. V.

Issue or pass any writ, direction or order to the respondents seeking details of payment made by the A & N Administration to the Lakshadweep Administration for the repair & maintenance of MV Sentinel & MV Campellbay between 2017 to 2022. VI.

Issue or pass any writ, direction or order to the respondents directing them to evaluate the sea worthiness of Coral Queen Ship for safety of the life & property of the passengers.

VII.

Issue or pass any writ, direction or order to the respondents directing them to submit the details of number of sailings made by Coral Queen in the Port Blair Mainland sector.

7.

Mr. Manoj Paul, the petitioner appears in person through virtual mode, submits that, since the information has not been provided to him as sought for in this writ petition through its prayers, the petitioner had no other alternative but to file this writ petition praying for mandamus to be issued. 8.

Prayers (ii) to (v) and then (vii) show that a bunch of information have been sought for by the petitioner. 9.

Unless those information are furnished to him and placed before this Court, the grievance of the writ petitioner cannot be

redressed, as submitted by the petitioner. Hence, this writ petition.

10.

Mr. Shatadru Chakraborty, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 1 and 3, at the outset, denies and disputes the allegations made by the petitioner. Referring to his client's affidavit-in-opposition, he submits that the specific stand of the Administration is in terms of the application filed by the petitioner under Right to Information Act, 2005, all such applications were duly responded by the authority and information were furnished. He then specifically referred to page 62 to the writ petition in support of his contention. Learned senior counsel, therefore, submits that this writ petition is totally de void of any merit and should be dismissed.

11.

Mr. Shatadru Chakraborty further submits that the proceeding for supply of vessel, which the petitioner seeks to challenge, was done by issuing a global tender by a reputed organization i.e. The Shipping Corporation of India. Insofar as the allegations of the petitioner regarding the manufacturing of the ship, Mr. Shatadru Chakraborty has referred to page -7 of his affidavit-in-opposition and submits that the necessary certificate of manufacturing the ship would show that the certificate in all respect as it is required under the law confirms the sea-worthiness of the vessel.

12.

He further submits referring to page -8 of the affidavitin-opposition that the detailed chart has been disclosed with regard to voyage of the subject ship. He further referring to the agreement at page 32 to the writ petition submits that the ship

was agreed to be utilized under the relevant agreement both for Inter-Island and Mainland-Island sectors. He further submits that all payments were made strictly in terms of the agreement. 13.

Mr.

Tabraiz, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.4, being the owner of the ship, submits that in terms of global tender having been issued, his client has participated and after meeting all the criteria thereunder, the respondent no.4 was selected to supply the relevant vessel and the vessel thereafter was duly certified by the appropriate authority in every respect and found to be sea-worthy and voyageable.

14.

The vessel at all material time was operated by the Shipping Corporation of India, which is a public sector undertaking, who was the technical manager on behalf of the Administration.

15.

Per contra the petitioner submits that the vessel was not technically qualified to travel upto the Chennai considering the draft of the vessel, which is 4.2 meters, and as such was not sea-worthy. The petitioner submits that Rs.267 crores were spent on account of this vessel by the Government and the quantum of money was sufficient for purchasing a new vessel. 16.

After considering the rival contentions of the parties and upon perusal of the materials on record and more specifically considering the averments made in the writ petition and reliefs claimed therein, we are of the view that all these factual niceties cannot be decided by a writ court unless some concrete and unimpeachable evidence, which cannot be questioned in any trial, are before this Court.

17.

The law is well settled that the triable issues cannot be decided by a writ court.

18.

The rival contentions of the parties show several factual issues are there on which parties are not consensus. Hence, such disputed question of facts cannot be gone into by a writ petition.

19.

Inasmuch, as so long the information as sought for by the petitioner as it would be evident from as prayer (i) to (v) and then (vii) of the writ petition are available before the writ petitioner and simultaneously are available before this Court, the substantive prayer in the writ petition being prayer (i) ) cannot be considered at this stage.

20.

Hence, the writ petition, in our considered opinion, is premature and not tenable in law at this stage. However, the petitioner shall be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law, in the event he requires any further information. 21.

Accordingly, the writ petition WPA(P)/8/2023 stands dismissed, without any order as to costs. Consequentially, all connected interlocutory applications stand disposed of. 22.

The year of the writ petition mentioned in the order February 24, 2025 should be corrected as 2023 instead of 2025. Accordingly, the order dated February 24, 2025 stands corrected.

( Aniruddha Roy, J. ) ( Bibhas Ranjan De, J.)