Disposed

Association for Aiding Justice through Authorized Signatory Mr. Ram Keswani v. Union of India through Secretary of Defence Minister and Ors.

Bombay HC10 Feb 2015PIL/159/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner raised a PIL regarding lapses in coastal security, citing the 26/11 attacks and recent incidents of drifting vessels grounding in Mumbai. The court found the questions had been adequately addressed by authorities and directed disposal without further orders.

What did the court decide?

PIL disposed off without any further orders; no order as to costs.

Association for Aiding Justice through… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

Shiv

¶2

1 pil159.11

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.159 OF 2011

¶5

Association for Aiding Justice .. Petitioner. Vs. Union of India & Ors. .. Respondents.

¶6

Mr.Dipesh U. Siroya for the Petitioner. Mr.N.D. Sharma and Mr.Jaydeep S. Deo for the Respondent Nos.1, 1a and 1b.

¶7

Mr.V.P. Malvankar AGP “A” Panel for Respondent No.3.

¶8

CORAM : A.S. OKA & A.K. MENON, JJ. DATED : 10TH FEBRUARY, 2015

¶9

P.C. :

¶10

This PIL raises the important issue of coastal security arrangements. The petitioner is a NGO working for welfare and protection of people in general. The petitioner submits that when armed terrorists entered Mumbai via sea and perpetrated the attack, on 26th November 2008, it imposed serious security lapses along the coast. On 11th June 2011, a large sea going vessel MV Wisdom went adrift after being detached from the tug that was towing from Colombo to Along in Gujarat. Thereafter it ran aground around five km on the south-west at Mumbai's Juhu beach, after apparently passing close to the Bandra-Worli Sea Link giving rise to some anxious moments.

¶11

2 pil159.11

¶12

In yet another incident it is stated that vessel MV Pavit, drifted of the coast of Oman for 100 hours before running ground at Juhu-Versova beach. Apparently this vessel was abandoned somewhere in the Gulf of Oman about 100 nautical miles of the Oman Coast before running aground in Mumbai. No attempts were made to prevent these vessels reaching our seas.

¶13

The petitioner states that naval authorities were unable to locate and prevent drift. It is further stated that after the terrorists attack in November 2008, the authorities proclaimed that several steps have been taken up to beef up coastal security but it appears that despite this security, two cargo vessels still passed through and till they ran aground in Mumbai. The petitioner therefore seeks detailed information of the steps taken to prevent such incidents.

¶14

An affidavit in reply has been filed on behalf of the Director General of Shipping by one S. Barik Engineer and Ship Surveyor-cum-Deputy Director General (Technical) who has sought to explain how and why MV Wisdom and MV Pavit drifted alongwith Mumbai and aground. In relation to MV Wisdom it is submitted that coastal inquiry under Merchant Shipping Act, 1958 has been carried out and the vessel reached in Mumbai due to main engine failure and breakage tow line which was toeing MV Wisdom. A copy of preliminary inquiry has been annexed. There are certain

¶15

3 pil159.11

¶16

recommendations that have been made which are required to be followed. The directions have been issued to Mumbai Port trust and other coastal agencies that a stand by tugs be deployed 24 X 7 as and by way of a preventive measure.

¶17

On behalf of Ministry of Defence Rear Admiral Sunil Anand has filed an affidavit setting out defence. He has deposed that in view of coastal security threat the Navy has accorded the highest priority to the new tasking of coastal security in the wake of 26/11 incident. The Indian Navy has taken the fresh mandate with due seriousness. The Navy has assured this Court that substantial measures have been taken and will be maintained in this regard. The Navy is constantly examining, reviewing and developing the coastal security construct and has offered to share with this Court several classified measures taken. There is a certain confidential integrated approach towards augmenting coastal security of the country which has been enclosed in a sealed cover for perusal of the Hon'ble Court. Paragraph 12 of the affidavit sets out that Sagar Prahari Bal has been constituted for Force protection and security of Navy establishments on the coast line.

¶18

It is further stated that the coastal security network has been planned for the entire coastline and the island territories of the country. Threat assessment based on intelligence inputs is regularly undertaken and measures to plug loopholes are initiated. It is

¶19

4 pil159.11

¶20

further stated that the coastal radar network is operational on the mainland and setting up of the radar sensors on the island territories is almost completed.

¶21

Having given due consideration to the series of issues that the petitioner has raised, the frank admissions that there have been lapses in the coastal security and given the firm resolve to plug all loopholes set out in paragraphs 12 and 13 on behalf of Ministry of Defence and Indian Navy, we are of the view that present PIL has served its purpose and we are therefore of the view that no further orders need to be passed. We have no doubt that the authorities will keep a strict vigil and take remedial and preventive steps to ensure that such unanticipated incidents are tackled with utmost dispatch by taking suitable preventive measures rather than reactive measures. Since the confidential data pertaining to coastal security is enclosed in a sealed cover and as it is matter of defence we do not wish to review the same. Accordingly it is directed that the sealed cover be returned to Naval authorities by the Prothonotary & Senior Master in an appropriate manner. The PIL is disposed off accordingly. No order as to costs.

¶22

(A.K. MENON, J.)

¶23

(A.S. OKA, J.)

Association for Aiding Justice through Authorized Signatory Mr. Ram Keswani v. Union of India through Secretary of Defence Minister and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Association for Aiding Justice through Authorized Signatory Mr. Ram Keswani v. Union of India through Secretary of Defence Minister and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sudhakar Vasudeo Velankar Vs Minister of State-Independent Charge and Infor.andORS.

The Asian Development Society Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Ketan Tirodkar Vs Reserve Bank of India and and Ors.

Indian Council of Investors Vs Union of India and 5 Ors.

Shri. Suresh Vitthal Pawar Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Forest Dept and Ors.

Shri. Shambhuraj Shivajirao Desai Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Forest and Rehabilitation Dept and Anr.

Shri. Suresh Vitthal Pawar Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Forest Dept and Ors.

Mr. Shrinath R. Pal Vs Mr. Ratnakar Gaikwad and Ors.

Govind Abhaji Kaspate and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shri. Kiran Patilbuva More and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra through Secretary, Revenue and Forest Dept. and Ors.

Shri. Dattatray Shankar Lagad and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra through Secretary, Revenue and Forest Dept. and Ors.

Jagdamba Shikshan Prasarak Mandal and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra through Principal Secretary, Revenue and Forest Dept. and Ors.

Rajeshwar Ramanna Kamble Vs Presiding Officer, Mr. P. R. Koli and Ors.

Shri Sant Narhari Maharaj Samadi Mandir Trust, Pandharpur, through Secretary and Anr. Vs the Honble Assistant Charity Commissioner, Solapur and Ors.