Disposed

Joseph Jegan v. The Assistant Director

Madras HC4 Sept 2018WP/29156/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bench quashed orders impounding fishing vessels and recalled a previous order, directing petitioners to apply for registration under the amended Marine Fishing Regulation Act, 1983. The Assistant Director must decide the vessel nature; optimistically, mechanized vessels are registered locally while deep sea vessels are referred to the Director General of Shipping.

What did the court decide?

Petitions disposed of; order dated 04.09.2018 recalled; petitioners directed to file registration applications.

Joseph Jegan Vs The Assistant Director — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 22.10.2018

¶3

CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. KIRUBAKARAN W.P. Nos. 29156 to 29158 of 2017 & W.M.P. Nos. 31420 to 31422 of 2017

¶4

Joseph Jegan ..Petitioner in W.P. No.29156/2017

¶5

D. Selvalagan ..Petitioner in W.P. No.29157/2017 P. Karthikeyan ..Petitioner in W.P. No.29158/2017 Vs.

¶6

The Assistant Director, Fishing Harbor Management Wing, Royapuram, Chennai – 13.

¶7

The Inspector of Fisheries, Fishing Harbor Management Wing, Royapuram, Chennai -13. ..Respondents in all the writ petitions

¶8

Prayer: Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issue of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records on the file of the 1^st respondent in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No. 338/2017 dated 30.10.2017, 21.10.2017 and 30.10.2017 respectively and to quash the same as illegal and without jurisdiction.

¶9

For Petitioners :: Mr.V.Raghavachari

¶10

For Respondents :: Mr.V. Kadhirvelu Special Govt. Pleader

¶11

Though the matters have been brought before this Court "For Being Mentioned", on hearing both the parties, this Court is of the view that the order has to be recalled, suo motu.

¶12

The writ petitions have been filed challenging the proceedings of the 1^st respondent dated 30.10.2017, 21.10.2017 and 30.10.2017 impounding the deep sea fishing vessels owned by the respective petitioners.

¶13

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶14

Heard Mr.V. Lakshmi Narayanan, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.V. Kadhirvelu, learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents.

¶15

Mr.V. Lakshmi Narayanan, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that by virtue of amendment Act No. 18 of 2017, the Marine Fishing Regulation Act, 1983 has been amended and clause (g) of Section 3 of the Act has been substituted by clauses (g), (ga), (gb) and (gc), and under the new clause (g), a "mechanised fishing vessel" has been defined as under:

¶16

"(g) mechanised fishing vessel" means a ship or boat fitted with mechanical means of propulsion having an engine of not less than twenty-eight Horse Power but not more than two hundred and forty Horse Power and measuring in overall length (OAL) not less than ten metres and less than twenty-four metres, but does not include a deep sea fishing vessel."

¶17

The power of the engine of respective petitioners' vessels is 240 hp and the overall length (OAL) is 74 ft, which is less than 24m, as defined under clause (g) of the Act. Therefore, the petitioners' vessels have to be registered by the 1^st respondent as vessels which would fit into the definition of mechanised fishing vessels. Moreover, he would point out that a Division Bench of Madurai Bench of this Court in W.P.(MD) No. 5840 of 2018, by order dated 28.04.2018 had directed the petitioners therein to file their applications for registration to the Director General of Shipping cum Secretary to Government, Mercantile Marine Department, Ministry of Shipping, Road Transport & Highways, Government of India, Mumbai, who shall forward the same to the Assistant Director of Fisheries cum Authorised Officer, Fishing Harbour Management Wing, Department of Fisheries, Thootukudi, for registration. As per order dated 07.06.2018, the petitioners have to file applications and the 1^st respondent herein has to decide the nature of the

¶18

vessel of the respective petitioners as to whether it is a mechanised fishing vessel or deep sea fishing vessel and if it is a mechanised fishing vessel, as per clause (g) of Section 3 of the Act, the 1^st respondent himself can register the vessel or if it is a deep sea fishing vessel, the application has to be sent by the 1^st respondent to the Director General of Shipping cum Secretary to Government, Mercantile Marine Department, Ministry of Shipping, Road Transport & Highways, Government of India, Mumbai for registration as per DGS circular No.3 of 2018 dated 14.02.2018.

¶19

In view of the aforesaid order passed by the Madurai Bench of this Court, DGS circular No. 3 of 2018 dated 14.02.2018

¶20

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶21

and also amended clause (g) of Section 3 of the Act, the petitioners are directed to file their applications for registration with the 1^st respondent, who shall decide about the nature of the vessel and in case, the vessel is a mechanised fishing vessel, it could be registered by the 1^st respondent or else, it could be referred to the aforesaid officer. The respective petitioners are directed to file applications for registration of their vessels within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and and the 1^st respondent is directed to take a decision within two weeks thereafter and pass appropriate orders. The order passed by this Court dated 04.09.2018 is recalled and the writ petitions are disposed of, on the above lines. No costs. Connected W.M.Ps are closed.

¶22

Sd/-

¶23

Assistant Registrar(CO)

¶24

//True Copy//

¶25

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶26

¶27

¶28

1.The Assistant Director, Fishing Harbor Management Wing, Royapuram, Chennai – 13.

¶29

2.The Inspector of Fisheries, Fishing Harbor Management Wing, Royapuram, Chennai -13.

¶30

+1cc to Mr.V.Raghavachari, Advocate, S.R.No.71716

¶31

W.P. Nos. 29156 to 29158 of 2017

¶32

KAN(CO)

¶33

rrs 24/10/2018

¶34

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Joseph Jegan v. The Assistant Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Joseph Jegan v. The Assistant Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Achariya College of Education, Vs Pondicherry University

Coimbatore Integrated Waste Vs Dr. K. Vijayakarthikeyan,Ias

T.N. Ramasamy Vs Mr. B. Anbu Selvan

C.Yesu Nesan, Vs The Chairman Cum Managing

Dr.K.Prasanna Venkatachalam Vs The Director of School

S.Dinesh Kumar (Minor), Ar No. Vs The Secretary