IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 07.08.2008 Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.JYOTHIMANI W.P.Nos.14404 & 45009 of 2006 and W.P.M.P.Nos.1425 & 15178 of 2006 and M.P.Nos.1 of 2006 & 1 of 2007 Marine Officers Training Academy rep. by its Director .. Petitioner in both the W.Ps Vs The Deputy Director General of Shipping, O/o:Director General of Shipping, Jahaz Bhavan, W-H Marg, Mumbai 1. .. Respondent in
W.P.No.14404/2006
1.The Director General of Shipping,
O/o:Director General of Shipping,
Jahaz Bhavan, W-H Marg,
Mumbai 1.
2.The Chief Co-ordinator,
Board of Examinations for
Seafarers Trust, Plot No.20,
403, Great Eastern Galleria,
Sector 4, Nerul,
Navi Mumbai 400 706. .. Respondents in
W.P.No.45009/2006
W.P.No.14404/2006: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of certiorari to call for the records relating to the proceedings of the respondent in No.3-TR (20)/2002 dated 04.04.2006 and quash the same.
W.P.No.45009/2006: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the first respondent in respect of its impugned orders in No.3-TR (18)/98-MISC-V dated 10.11.2006 and in Ref.BES/06/Misc./515 dated 13.11.2006, quash the same and consequently permit the petitioner Institute to conduct the Course including the examination without any interference from respondents 1 and 2.
For Petitioner .. Mr. R.Suresh Kumar in
both the W.Ps
For Respondents .. Mr.T.S.Sivagnanam, SCGSC in
W.P.No.14404/2006
Mr.P.Mahadevan, SCGSC in
W.P.No.45009/2006
COMMON ORDER
The petitioner in both the writ petitions viz., Marine Officers Training Academy is conducting courses offered by the first respondent Director General of Shipping viz., Pre Sea Training for G.P. Rating which is a six months course with a permitted intake of 80 candidates in two batches of 40 each in each year. It is stated that the petitioner-Institute has been approved by the first respondent-Director General of Shipping, who is the authority, On 22.10.2003. It appears that based on certain complaint regarding want of infrastructure and other allegations, a surprise inspection was made by the officials of the first respondent on 09.09.2005. Certain financial irregularities committed by the petitioner are stated to have been found, on which, notice was issued to the petitioner, for which, the petitioner has given its detailed reply stating that the investigation made in respect of bank account does not relate to the conducting of the course by the petitioner. Not satisfied with the said preliminary investigation, the first respondent has issued a show cause notice as per DGS Order No.1/03 which stipulates mandatory guidelines issued by the first respondent for the Institutes like that of the petitioner for conducting courses for Pre Sea Training. It is after explanation was received to the show cause notice, the first respondent has passed the impugned order dated 04.04.2006, revoking the approval granted to the petitioner-Institute dated 22.02.2003 for conducting of Pre Sea Training for G.P. Rating course and suspending the approval with immediate effect, which is questioned in W.P.No.14404 of 2006. The impugned order also states that after a lapse of two years from the said order of suspension of approval, the claim of the petitioner for revival will be considered after satisfactory inspection by the respective academic counsel etc., The impugned order is challenged on various grounds including the violation of principles of natural justice, that even as per the mandatory guidelines issued by the first respondent for conducting the course, there is no fee structure stipulated and therefore, it is not open to the first respondent to raise objection about the fees stated to have been collected from the students apart from stating that the petitioner is always confirming to the guidelines and is not collecting any excess fee.
2.Learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents in both the writ petitions would submit that under the impugned order, by which, the approval granted to the petitioner was suspended, one of the main reasons was that entire fees to be collected by the Institute under the control of the respondents was Rs.40,000/- per training however the petitioner is said to have collected double the amount viz., Rs.80,000/-. However the same is disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner stating that even as per the guidelines, there is no fee structure. The only irregularity committed by the petitioner would be that the petitioner has not intimated the amount of fees which has been collected as per the prospectus issued by the petitioner Institute.
3.In the meantime, it appears that the petitioner-Institute has admitted students for the subsequent batch and telegrams sent by the petitioner-Institute to the first respondent for permission of students to write examination along with the required amount was returned by the first respondent on 13.11.2006 and that order is challenged by the writ petitioner in W.P.No.45009 of 2006.
4.Some points which are relevant to be considered before disposing the writ petitions are that pending W.P.No.45009 of 2006, this Court by order dated 04.12.2006 passed in M.P.No.1 of 2006 has granted interim direction to the respondents which includes the Chief Coordinator, Board of Examinations of Seafarers Trust, Mumbai to permit the students of the petitioner-Institute to take up their examinations which were to commence on 9th December, 2006 and that permission was granted subject to the result of the present two writ petitions. It is not in dispute that pursuant to the direction, the students admitted in the petitioner-Institute were permitted to write examinations in December, 2006.
5.It is also seen that six of the students who have written examinations pursuant to the said direction viz., M.Prabhakaran, P.Rahul, S.Santhosh Kumar, J.Anand, M.Madhan Kumar and A.Kavaskar have approached this Court by filing W.P.No.34348 of 2007 for a direction to the second respondent therein to issue Continuous Discharge Certificate and Identity of Seafarers (CDC) for the course conducted by the writ petitioner herein during the period 01.06.2006 to 31.12.2006. This Court while disposing of the said writ petition filed by the students and taking into consideration that the Chief Coordinator, Board of Examinations has issued certificate to all students admitted in the year 2006 including the above said six students declaring that they have successfully passed the All India Examination conducted by the Board of Examinations for Seafarers Trust held in December, 2006 and taking note of the fact that the said petitioners have been permitted to write the examination as per the direction of this Court, has directed the second respondent therein to issue Continuous Discharge Certificate and Identity of Seafarers (CDC) to the said petitioners if there are no other legal impediments making it clear that issuance of such certificate would be subject to the final result in these writ petitions. Subsequent to the disposal of the said writ petition on 09.01.2008, as submitted by the learned Senior Central Government Standing counsel for the respondents that the said petitioners were issued with CDC. It is also seen that subsequent to the said batch of students who have been issued with CDC, students have been admitted by the petitioner viz., two batches in 2007 and one batch in 2008. Some of the students who were thus admitted have also approached this Court by filing W.P.Nos.10394 to 10401 of 2008 and this Court while disposing of the said writ petitions by order dated 03.07.2008 and taking into consideration that the respondents themselves have permitted those students to write examinations, directed the second respondent therein to issue Continuous Discharge Certificate and Identity of Seafarers (CDC) to the said students who have filed the above writ petitions. As stated by Mr.T.S.Sivagnanam, learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel for the respondent in W.P.No.14404 of 2006, consequent to the said direction, the issuance of CDC is in process. It is also stated that for first batch of the year 2008 of the course conducted by the petitioner-Institute, students were admitted by the petitioner and they were permitted to write examination by the respondents and results were published and the same is pending at that stage.
6.In the meantime, it is stated that for the second batch of the year 2008, the Course was to commence from 1st July, 2008. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the list of students admitted have been sent to the first respondent with necessary particulars for perusal by the first respondent and appropriate orders. It is stated that the first respondent has perused the particulars however no final order has been passed yet. In such a situation wherein either by the direction of this Court, the students were permitted to write examination and issued the necessary completion certificates or by the conduct of the respondents themselves in permitting the students to write examination and issuing certificates pending writ petitions, there is no necessity for this Court now to decide about the validity or otherwise of such certificates issued by the respondents. As far as the right of the petitioners to continue the course for the second batch of 2008 which was to commence on 1st July, 2008, even as per the impugned order, it is clear that after the period of suspension of two years, the petitioner is entitled for consideration of extension of approval subject to the satisfactory inspection by the academic counsel of the respondents. Now the period of two years has been completed even in April, 2008, the only course open to the petitioner is to make necessary application to the first respondent for the purpose of restoration of approval granted by the first respondent to the petitioner on 22.08.2003.
7.Since subsequent to the second batch of 2006, students have been permitted to write examination and in some cases, results were published and CDC were issued and in some cases, the same is pending with the respondents, W.P.No.45009 of 2006 in which the challenge is made against the order of the first respondent actually becomes infructuous and therefore the said writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected petitions are dismissed.
8.Due to the above said reason, the writ petition in W.P.No.14404 of 2006 is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to make necessary application to the first respondent for restoration of approval within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on such receipt, the first respondent shall pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law after effecting necessary inspection as per the guidelines through its authority and as per the guidelines governing the respondents as well as the petitioner and such order shall be passed expeditiously by the first respondent in any event within a period of six weeks from the date of application made by the petitioner as directed above. It is made clear that while passing such order, the first respondent shall also take into account the list of students stated to have been submitted by the petitioner for the batch relating to second half of the year 2008 relating to the above said course. It is also made clear that in the event of the first respondent conducting inspection, any deficiency found out, the first respondent shall give sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to rectify such deficiency before passing final order. No costs. Consequently, connected petitions are closed.
mmi
To
1.The Deputy Director General of Shipping,
O/o:Director General of Shipping,
Jahaz Bhavan, W-H Marg, Mumbai 1.
2.The Director General of Shipping,
O/o:Director General of Shipping,
Jahaz Bhavan, W-H Marg, Mumbai 1.
3.The Chief Co-ordinator,
Board of Examinations for
Seafarers Trust, Plot No.20,
403, Great Eastern Galleria,
Sector 4, Nerul,
Navi Mumbai 400 706