Kerala High Court
Thomas.T.T vs State Of Kerala on 7 June, 2019
Author: Shaji P.Chaly
Bench: Shaji P.Chaly
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
FRIDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF JUNE 2019 / 17TH JYAISHTA, 1941
WP(C).No. 21436 of 2010
PETITIONER/S:
1 THOMAS.T.T, AGED 48 YEARS,
S/O.T.V.THOMAS, THEVARCAD THOTTAM,, C/O.NELLIKUNNAM
HOUSE, ALLEPPEY NORTH.P.O,, KOMADI, ALLEPPEY.
2 HARI NARAYANAN, AGED 42 YEARS
S/O.C.T.NARAYANAN, CHAKKARATH HOUSE,, M.O.WARD,
ALLEPPEY-688 001.
3 RAJU JOSEPH, AGED 43 YEARS
S/O.A.J.JOSEPH, ALLEPATT HOUSE, THATHAMPALLY.P.O,,
ALLEPPEY DISTRICT.
4 V.C.ZACHARIAH, AGED 47 YEARS
S/O.V.Z.CHERIAN, VAIKATHUKARAN HOUSE,, CULLEN ROAD,
ALLEPPEY-688 001.
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR (SR.)
SRI.RAMPRASAD UNNI T.
SMT.SMITHA GEORGE
SRI.K.G.RAJEESH
SRI.MANU TOM
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY,, GOVERNMENT OF
KERALA, SECRETARIAT,, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
2 THE SECRETARY, COASTAL SHIPPING AND
INLAND NAVIGATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
3 THE SECRETARY,
TOURISM (A) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
4 THE CHIEF INSPECTOR OF BOATS
WP(C).No. 21436 of 2010 2
CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD-682 030.
*ADDL. DR.PYARILAL S.K.,
5 AGED 53 YEARS,
S/O K.R.KRISHNAN,
RESIDING AT SREENILAYAM,
KOCHI UNIVERSITY P.O,
KOCHI - 682022
*ADDL.R5 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER IN I.A.
13757/2010 DATED 08.10.2010.
R1 TO R4 BY SMT.B VINITHA.B, GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
07.06.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 21436 of 2010 3
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:-
"i) To declare that the rules framed by the Government of Kerala under the Inland Vessels Act (Central Act 1 of 1917) and published in the Kerala Gazette Extra ordinary No.1055, is unconstitutional, void and inoperative as violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
ii) To issue a Writ of Mandamus
forbearing the respondents from
implementing the rules framed by the
Government of Kerala under the Inland
Vessels Act (Central Act 1 of 1971) and published in the Kerala Gazette Extra ordinary No.1055 to the house boats plying tourists in the lakes and backwaters of Kerala.
iii) To issue such other writs, orders or directions as this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."
2. Petitioners are owners of Houseboats which are used in the Back Waters of Kerala for carrying tourists. The boats have been licensed under the provisions of the Canals and Public Ferries Act. The WP(C).No. 21436 of 2010 4 Government of Kerala has framed Rules under the Inland Vessels Act (Central Act 1 of 1917) and has published the same in the Gazette Extra ordinary No.1055, however, the Rules are not brought into force.
3. According to the petitioners, the Rules are provided for Sea-going Vessels of a large size with a big hull and the stipulations are designed to meet the specifications of large boats going to the Sea. It is also submitted that, while the petitioners have absolutely no objection to the registration of Vessels or inspection of safety, some of the Rules have the effect of crippling tourism boat industry as a whole, particularly in backwaters, as many of the Rules are impractical, unworkable and costly. It is thus seeking to declare the Rules unconstitutional, this writ petition is filed.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader and perused the pleadings and the documents on record.
5. This writ petition was pending before this court for the past about nine years without securing any interim orders. At this distance of time, one cannot visualise that, petitioners were operating the WP(C).No. 21436 of 2010 5 boats without necessary registration in accordance with the Rules constituted for the purpose, if they are operating the boats.
6. I am informed by learned Government Pleader that, when the writ petition was filed, the Rule was not implemented, however during the pendency, the Rules were implemented and therefore, 2nd relief sought has virtually become infructuous. In that view of the matter, I do not think anything survives to be considered at this distance of time as is contended in the writ petition.
Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed, however, leaving open the liberty of the petitioners to approach the authorities, if anything survives to be considered on account of the registration secured by them in accordance with the Act and the Rules specified above. The questions of law raised with respect to the constitutionality of the provisions of the rules referred to above are all left open.
Sd/-
SHAJI P.CHALY JUDGE uu 07.06.2019