Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 55315
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI, SYAM KUMAR V.M., JJ
VIZHINJAM STEAMER AGENTS ASSOCIATION REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, B.N.RAJMOGHON – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION – Respondent
WA NO.2037 OF 2025 | WP(C) NO.32507/2022
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Smt.Merline Mathew, Sri.V.J.Mathew (SR.), Sri.VIPIN P.VARGHESE, Sri.ADARSH MATHEW, Sri.ANIRUDH G. KAMATH, Sri.AGUSTHO NORBERT, Smt.MEGHA MADHAVAN
For the Respondents: Sri.SUVIN R.MENON, SCGC, R1 to R4, Sri.JAISHANKAR V.NAIR, SENIOR PANEL COUNSEL, Sri.K.P.SUDHEER, SC, R5
The legal principle established is that administrative decisions regarding crew changes at ports, dictated by security concerns, are subject to reasonable restrictions under constitutional provisions.
Headnote:This appeal reviews the judgment dated 19.05.2025 by the Single Judge in W.P.
(C) No.32507/2022, challenging the legality of Ext.P3 which withdrew crew change services at Vizhinjam Port. The court found that the withdrawal was consistent with the visa manual's stipulations following the pandemic. Key issues involved whether the Single Judge's dismissal of the Writ Petition was justified under Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution. The court noted that restrictions imposed were reasonable, considering national security and prior practices, and concluded that Ext.P3 was lawful, thus dismissing the writ appeal.
Dated this the 03rd day of December, 2025 Syam Kumar V.M., J.
This appeal is filed challenging the judgment dated
19.05.2025 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.32507 of
2022. Appellants were the petitioners in the W.P.(C).
2. The W.P.(C) was filed by the appellants seeking to quash Ext.P3 issued by the 2nd respondent whereby the controlled crew change services which were being rendered from the outer anchorage of Vizhinjam Sea Port was withdrawn. Terming such withdrawal as illegal, appellants had filed the Writ Petition inter alia seeking a direction commanding the 2nd and 3rd respondents to permit crew change at the inner and outer anchorage of Vizhinjam Port. The prayers sought in the W.P.(C) reads as follows:
“(a) issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction calling for Exhibit P3 and quash the same ;
(b) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 2nd and 3rd respondents to permit crew change at the inner and outer anchorage of the Vizhinjam Port on the request of petitioners and/or option of Port authority at Vizhinjam and/or the Kerala Maritime Board :
(c) Grant such other reliefs as may be prayed for and the court may deem fit to grant and grant the cost of this Writ Petition.”
3. The learned Single Judge dismissed the W.P.(C) inter alia holding that the sign on/sign off at outer anchorage was a temporary measure that was permitted noting the exigency of the situation during Covid 19 pandemic and once the Covid-19 pandemic protocols are removed, the procedure should revert to the provisions prescribed in sub-para (3) of paragraph 23.2 of Visa Manual, 2019. It was also held that the amendment brought about by Ext.P13 to the Visa Manual, 2019 remains unchallenged and the withdrawal of Covid-19 related directives and SOPs vide Ext.P7 order dated 01.04.2022 was in accordance with the amendment. Since Ext.P3 communication, withdrawing controlled crew change services rendered from outer anchorage of Vizhinjam seaport was in terms of Ext.P7 order, the challenge put forth in the W.P.(C) was not sustainable in law. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the W.P.(C), this Writ Appeal had been filed.
4. Heard Sri.V.J.Mathew, Senior Advocate, instructed by Merlin Mathew, Advocate for the appellants and Sri.Suvin R.Menon, Advocate, SCGC for R1 to R4 and Sri.K.P.Sudheer, Advocate, Standing Counsel for R5.
5. On behalf of the appellants, it is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel that the learned Single Judge erred in dismissing the Writ Petition, overlooking the fact that Ext.P3 order was arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. It is contended that despite the Vizhinjam Port being a valid Port of entry and exit, the 2nd respondent had vide Ext.P3 order unreasonably withdrawn the crew change services from outer anchorage of Vizhinjam Sea Port. Exts.P9 to P13 SOPs does not de novo create a right/permit for crew change at the outer anchorage and hence the repeal of the SOPs does not extinguish the right/permission to provide crew change facilities at the outer anchorage at Vizhinjam.
6. It is submitted that the learned Single Judge erred in overlooking the fact that Vizhinjam Port being a minor port came under the Kerala Maritime Board (KMB) which had declared the Vizhinjam Port as a crew change terminal. The Kerala Maritime Board Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the 'KMB Act'), expressly states that the anchorage is within the ambit of KMB and minor ports. The finding of the learned Single Judge that the KMB Act does not empower the KMB/Vizhinjam Port Authority to permit the sea- going vessels to carry out crew change activities is erroneous. Section 26 of the KMB Act permits any sea-going vessel to come alongside and to places within the limits of the port, including anchorage, for landing and shipping goods or passengers. Section 26 thus permits the boarding and de-boarding of seafarers/crews/passengers which are permissible port activity within
