to National Waterways. It is contended that under the powers of Entry 30 and Entry 32, the Parliament has enacted the Inland Waterways Authority of India Act, 1985 (hereinafter to be referred as the “Act of 1985”), which provides for permit selling up infrastructure for the National Waterways, etc.

It is the case of the petitioner that similar provision has also been enacted under Section 14 of the Act of 2018 to regulate the activities of the Inland Water Operators. Since the Transport Operators shall be operated in the National Waterways, namely, on the river Brahmaputra and River Barak, it is clear that these two Acts operate on the same subject, however, any enactment pursuant to the legislative powers conferred on concurrent list requires the assent of the President but in the present case, the Act of 2018 received the assent of the Governor only on 15.11.2018, whereas the Presidential assent has not been obtained and, therefore, the Act of 2018 is liable to be declared as inoperative and ultra vires to Article 254(2) of the Constitution of India.

4. It is also the case of the petitioner that Section 14(2)(k) of the Act of 2018 stipulates “promote public private partnership, private participation and outsourcing for effective implementation of the Act of 2018”. However, looking to the fact that the Regulatory Authority constituted under the Act of 2018 is not owing any vessel or ship and is also not operating any vessel or ship, therefore, they cannot promote public-private partnership. The authorization given to the Regulatory Authority to make any provisions for private participation in public vessels or ships to operate in the Indian Waterways is illegal. It is the further case of the petitioner that the public vessels or ships are owned by the Inland Water Transport, Assam and the Directorate of Inland Water Transport, Assam provides ferry services through public ships or vessels. When these vessels or ships are not owned by the Regulatory Authority, they cannot make any provision to promote public-private partnership and cannot be authorized to make any provision for private participation in the public ferry services. In similar terms, the Regulatory Authority cannot be authorized to make any provision for outsourcing of public ferry services.

5. Reply to the writ petition is filed by the respondent Nos.1 & 2 and respondent Nos.3 & 4. The sum and substance of the reply filed by the respondent Nos.1, 2 & 3 is that the statement of the writ petitioner that the Act of 2018 overlaps the Act of 1985 is baseless. It is contended that Section 14 of the Act of 1985 operates on the National Level right from notifying waterways as National or Inter State and in international traffic through international rivers and laying down broad parameters for navigation and safety standards, and inter alia, survey, investigation and maintenance of waterways, permit for infrastructure facilities, conservancy and demarcating navigable channels, training navigational meteorological information, only to advise the Central Government on Inland Waterways matters, hydrographic surveys and publication of river charts, assist the State Governments in formulation and implementation of Schemes, to provide consultancy services in India or abroad, conduct research on craft design and mechanization, lay down standards for classification of National Waterways. However, the Regulatory Authority constituted under the Act of 2018 is assigned to coordinate with the National Authority and set up standards in the local context under local geographical and socio-economic necessity.

It is further contended that the Inland Vessels Act, 1921 defines roles of the Central and the State Governments and envisages creating designated authorities on both levels. It is the specific stand of the respondents that there is no actual conflict between the two statutes and Presidential assent under Article 254(2) of the Constitution of India is not required. It is further conte