Kerala High Court
M/S.Blue Sky Port Services Pvt. Ltd vs The State Of Kerala on 16 May, 2012
Author: T.R.Ramachandran Nair
Bench: T.R.Ramachandran Nair
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
TUESDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF JULY 2012/9TH SRAVANA 1934
WP(C).No. 16573 of 2012 (V)
---------------------------------------
PETITIONER:
-------------------
M/S.BLUE SKY PORT SERVICES PVT. LTD.,
REGITON BUILDINGS,AIRPORT ROAD,VALLAKADAVU.P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
JUDE SAJITH D'CRUZ.
BY ADVS.SRI.SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY,
SRI.A.S.ANILKUMAR.
RESPONDENTS:
-----------------------
1. THE STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
2. THE DIRECTOR,
DEPARTMENT OF PORTS,DIRECTORATE OF PORTS, KERALA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
3. THE PURSER,
VIZHINJAM PORT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 521.
4. THE COMMANDING OFFICER,
INDIAN COAST GUARD,VIZHINJAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 521.
5. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR (MARINE ENFORCEMENT),
FISHERIES DEPARTMENT,VIZHINJAM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN-695 521.
6. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
COASTAL POLICE,VIZHINJAM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 521.
R1 & R6 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. MUHAMMED SHAH,
R2 TO R5 BY SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,A.S.G OF INDIA.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 31-07-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C).NO.16573/2012-V:
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXT-P1: TRUE COPY OF THE PERMISSION DATED 16/05/2012.
EXT-P2: TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPTS DATED 28/05/2012.
EXT-P3: TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPTS.
EXT-P4: TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT IN 29/05/2012 ON KERALA KAUMUDI.
EXT-P5: TRUE COPY OF THE MADHYAMAM DAILY ON 29/05/2012.
EXT-P6: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 28.05.2012.
EXT-P7: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 29/05/2012.
EXT-P8: TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT IN THIS REGARD IN MALAYALA
MANORAMA ON 7/06/2012.
EXT-P9: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 5.06.2012.
EXT-P10: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 6.06.2012.
EXT-P11: TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT IN MALAYALA MANORAMA DTD. 11/07/2012.
EXT-P12: TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST UNDER RTI ACT DATED 6/06/2012.
EXT-P13: TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 11/07/2012.
EXT-P14: TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH.
RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES:
ANNEXURE R4.A: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 28/05/2012.
ANNEXURE R4.B: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 05/06/2012.
ANNEXURE R4.C: COPIES OF THE CERTIFICATES OF REGISTRATION.
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE.
Prv.
T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
--------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C)No.16573 Of 2012
--------------------------------------------------
DATED THIS THE 31st DAY OF JULY, 2012
JUDGMENT
This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner seeking for a direction to respondents 4 to 6 to remove the vessels under their control from Seaward Wharf of Vizhinjam Port forthwith, so as to ensure safe berthing of two barges.
2. After the filing of the Writ Petition, this Court passed interim orders in the matter on 20.7.2012 and 26.7.2012. By interim order dated 20.7.2012, this Court directed respondents 2 to 6 to see that effective steps are taken in the matter so as to alleviate the grievances of the petitioner and for enabling proper berthing of two barges. Further directions were issued on 26.7.2012 also.
3. Today, it is submitted that the vessels, owned by the Police, have already been removed to the leaward side wharf and as far as the vessel maintained by the Coast Guard is concerned, it was moved forward for enabling the W.P.(C)No.16573/12 -2- petitioner to take the two barges. In that view of the matter, no further orders are called for in the Writ Petition and the same is closed.
In the light of the complaint that is raised in the Writ Petition, the Port Officer or the competent authority concerned, will be duty bound to see that whenever vessels like the one, namely barges or other vessels are brought for barging or for berthing, effective steps are taken by the responsible officers in unison without delay, since as far as workers depending upon the works are concerned, everyday's work is important for them and unnecessary expenses on the part of persons like the petitioner can also be avoided. No costs.
Sd/-(T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) dsn