Back
2021 Supreme(Online)(KER) 21879
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
S.MANIKUMAR, CJ, SHAJI P.CHALY, J
DR.PYARILAL S.K. – Appellant
Versus
THE DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF PORTS – Respondent
WP(C)/14073/2013
SRI.P.K.IBRAHIM, SMT.K.P.AMBIKA, SRI.SHAIJAN C.GEORGE, SMT.A.A.SHIBI
The ruling underscored the importance of integrating safety protocols in vessel design and operations, mandating compliance with updated regulatory frameworks.
Headnote:
Regulation - Inland Vessels - Inland Vessels Act, 1917, Kerala Inland Vessels Rules, 2010 - The court emphasized the necessity for safety regulations in vessel design and registration, referencing the amendments to the Kerala Inland Vessels Rules to enhance safety and compliance requirements.
Fact of the Case:
Public Interest Litigation filed by a Naval Architect concerns the inadequacy of safety regulations under the Inland Vessels Act, 1917 and the KIV Rules, 2010 after a tragic boat accident, seeking mandates for design approval and registration compliance.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the government had taken necessary steps to enhance safety through amendments to the existing rules, though initial regulations did not sufficiently address preliminary stability calculations for vessel design.
Issues: Whether the Kerala Inland Vessels Rules, 2010 adequately ensure the safety and compliance of vessels in the wake of repeated boat accidents.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that while the existing regulations were imperfect, ongoing amendments and government actions demonstrated a commitment to improving vessel safety standards.
Final Decision: The writ petition was disposed of, recognizing effective steps taken by the State Government to ensure safety in vessel operations.
JUDGMENT
SHAJI P. CHALY, J.
This is a Public Interest Litigation filed by a Naval Architect and Associate Professor, who is also said to be an Approved Consultant Naval Architect of Ports under the provisions of the Kerala Inland Vessels (KIV)
Rules, 2010 ('Rules, 2010' for short).
2. According to the petitioner, he was the technical expert who assisted the Crime Branch in the investigation of the Thekkady Boat tragedy. It is also submitted that notwithstanding the recommendations of various Commissions of Enquiries, the petitioner was appointed to study the causes of boat accidents and recommend measures. However, the Government has shown little interest in bringing out a comprehensive Rule under the Inland Vessels Act, 1917 ('Act, 1917' for short), which compelled the petitioner to file W.P.(C) No. 17729 of 2010 in public interest before this Court for a writ of mandamus to frame the Rules under the Act, 1917. According to the petitioner, as per the directions issued by this Court, the Government framed Rules, 2010. The petitioner accordingly, seeks the following reliefs:
1. Direct the first respondent not to accept any design for construction of a vessel without the drawings for preliminary stability and flooding calculations as required under Rules 6(4) and (5), 113(2) and 134(2) of the KIV Rules, 2010 and also satisfying all the drawings and calculations made mention in the order approved consultants.
2. Issue a declaration that the Vessels seeking registration under the KIV Rules must have been constructed as per a design approved by the approved naval consultants with drawings of preliminary stability and flooding calculation as required under Rules 6(4) and (5), 113(2) and 134(2) of the KIV Rules, 2010. .
3. Issue a writ of mandamus commanding the first respondent and its officers not to grant registration to any vessels which has been constructed without the drawing of preliminary stability and flooding calculation as required under Rule 6(4) and (5), 113(2) and 134(2) of the KIV Rules, 2010.
3. The paramount contention advanced is that as per Rule 5, the owner or builder who intends to build a vessel shall, before laying the keel of the vessel, submit a preliminary application expressing his intention to build a vessel, in Form No.1 along with particulars specified in sub-clauses (b), (c) , (d), (e) and (f) of Rule 6(4), to the Chief Surveyor so that the progress of construction can be watched by the Surveyor from the very beginning and at different stages of construction. Various other Rules are relied upon by the petitioner to substantiate the contentions and the reliefs sought for in the writ petition.
4. A detailed counter affidavit is filed by the State of Kerala, the second respondent, refuting the allegations and the claims and demands raised by the petitioner, however, explaining the steps taken in order to ensure the safety of the boats that are manufactured, granting registration and permission to use in water bodies. Among other contentions, it is submitted that as per Rules, 2010, Port Department is conducting survey, registration and issuing licences to the passenger boats and crafts vessels, which are to ply in the inland waters of Kerala. Those boats, crafts etc. are to be issued licence after conducting survey in each crafts by the Department of Surveyors and the licences are issued only after making physical verification of the condition of the boat and all equipments such as life jacket, life buoy, fire extinguishers, navigation equipments etc. and all other items which are required as per Rules, 2010. Section 33 of the Act, 1917 gives the power for the State Government to appoint a court of investigation by appointing an appropriate officer. Accordingly, the first respondent has appointed the Additional Director General of Police as investigation Officer for enquiry of the accident. The second respondent has also appointed a team of officers vide order No. B3-5360/15/DP dated 31.08.2015 for inspection of
