( 1 ) THIS writ petition has been filed by the Forward Seamen's Union of India, a registered Trade Union, seeking to represent various categories of seamen engaged in Indian and Foreign vessels and also home trade vessels. The subject matter of challenge in this writ petition is primarily in respect of two notifications being annexures P/2 and P/3 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Surface Transport, Director General of Shipping. The actual notification is dated 27. 03. 2001 being the order of Director General of Shipping, the second respondent and the communication dated 30. 03. 2001 is a covering letter. Annexure P/3 is a communication dated 11. 04. 2001 issued on behalf of the Director, Government of India, Ministry of Surface Transport, Seamen's Employment Branch, addressed to the Shipping Corporation of India, the sixth respondent. In the said communication, the Director General of Shipping informed the sixth respondent that in terms of the order of the second respondent dated 27. 03. 2001, the Director is not in a position to accept the indent dated 11. 04. 2001 for selection of two ratings on 12. 04. 2001. A copy of the said communication has also been forwarded to the General Secretary of the petitioner-union. In fact, annexure P/3 is consequential in view of annexure P/2.

( 2 ) IN the writ petition, an attempt has been made to give the background and the mode and manner in which the seamen were engaged and employed prior to the promulgation of the Merchant Shipping Act 1958 (hereinafter called as 'msa' ). It has been stated that the procedure relating to the employment of seamen prevailing prior to MSA gave ample opportunity for exploitation of the seamen by the brokers and the so-called trade union leaders. It has also been urged that the Government of India accepted the recommendation of the Second Maritime Session of the International Labour Conference of 1920 about the placement of Seamen and the Indian Merchant Shipping Act, 1923 (hereinafter called as 'imsa') was introduced. It has been further contended that pursuant to the recommendation of the said conference all licences of the brokers were withdrawn. Previously the brokers used to control the recruitment process of maritime labour. Sometime in the month of October 1953, the Asian Maritime Conference was held in Ceylon and resolutions taken at the said conference have been also adverted to in the writ petition. Therefore, in the year 1954, the Government of India established the Seamen's Employment Office at Mumbai and in the year 1955, the Seamen's Employment office was established at Calcutta. Then came MSA in the year 1958.

( 3 ) IT has been argued by the learned counsel of the petitioner that under section 12 of MSA, the Central Government has been empowered to establish at every Port in India, in which it thinks necessary so to do, a Seamen's Employment office and in which, Director, Deputy Director and Assistant Director may be appointed. The learned counsel further submits that in the context of such an office, the provisions of sections 95 and 96 of MSA, have considerable importance. The attention of the Court has also been drawn to the notification dated 10. 09. 1986 issued by the first respondent. The said notification was issued in exercise of the power under sub-section (3) of section 95 of MSA about the functioning of the Seamen's Employment offices in Mumbai, Chennai, and Calcutta. It is the case of the petitioner that a result of the said notification, there has been engagement and supply of seamen without any complaint or corrupt practices.

( 4 ) THE impugned order in annexure 2, according to the learned counsel of the petitioner, will give rise of corruption and disrupt the present trend of recruitment. The said order has been challenged on various grounds.

( 5 ) BEFORE adverting to those grounds, one thing may be made clear that the vires of section 456 of MSA under which the impugned order was passed ha