IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 37103 of 2007(S)
1. M.K.MUHAMMAD FATHAHUDDEEN
... Petitioner
Vs
1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP
3. CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR,
For Petitioner :DR.VINCENT PANIKULANGARA
For Respondent :SRI.PR.RAMACHANDRA MENON,SC,LAKSHADWEEP
The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.H.L.DATTU
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN
Dated :14/12/2007
O R D E R
H.L.Dattu,C.J. & P.N.Ravindran,J.
-----------------------------------------------
W.P.(C).No.37103 of 2007-S
-----------------------------------------------
Dated, this the 14th day of December, 2007
JUDGMENT
P.N.Ravindran,J.
The petitioner is an Indian citizen, residing in Andrott Island in the
Lakshadweep group of Islands. He has filed this writ petition, purportedly in public
interest, seeking the following reliefs:
“(i) to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the
1st respondent to conduct an enquiry regarding the delay in the
delivery of m.v Kavaratti by the 3rd respondent and the inaction of
the 2nd respondent regarding the delay.
(ii) to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding
respondents 2 and 3 to submit a report to this Hon’ble Court with
regard to the present position of m.v Kavaratti and when m.v
Kavaratti will be delivered to the 2nd respondent.
(iii) to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the
2nd respondent to realize compensation from the 3rd respondent for
the delay in the delivery of m.v Kavaratti, in the form of another
passenger vessel having the name ‘m.v Compensation” and the
capacity of 750 passengers.
(iv) to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the
1st respondent to proceed against the officers of respondents 1 / 2
for not executing Ext.P-1 on time and to realize
damages/compensation from the officers concerned”.
(2) The essence of the complaint raised by the petitioner is that
though a ship building contract was entered into by the Administrator, Union
Territory of Lakshadweep, with a Government concern, viz., the Hindustan
Shipyard Ltd., Vishakhapattanam as early as on 18.08.2000, the ship has not
W.P.(C).No.37103 of 2007-S – 2 –
been built and delivered over to the Lakhadweep administration. The main
allegation in the writ petition is that though the builder had agreed to deliver the
ship in 29 months, notwithstanding the fact that more than 88 months have
elapsed after the agreement was entered into and the lion’s share of the amount
payable under the contract has been paid, the ship has not been built or delivered
over to the owner.
(3) Article XII of Exhibit P1 agreement contains the stipulations
regarding the default if any committed by the owner or the builder, as the case
may be. Article XIII provides for resolution of disputes between the builder and
owner by way of arbitration.
(4) The petitioner is not a party to Exhibit P1 contract. The
essence of the relief claimed by him is, enforcement of the contract entered into
by the Administrator, Union Territory of Lakshadweep with a Government
concern, viz., the Hindustan Shipyard Ltd. It is important to notice that though the
petitioner has sought for four reliefs in the writ petition, they are in the nature of
an enquiry into the delay in the ship building activity and no relief is sought
regarding completion of the ship building within a time frame. After hearing the
learned counsel appearing for the petitioner at length and after going through
Exhibit P1 agreement and also the reliefs sought for in the writ petition, we are of
the opinion that the attempt of the petitioner is to seek enforcement of a contract
entered into by the Administrator, Union Territory of Lakshadweep, the owner,
with Hindustan Shipyard Ltd., the ship builder, and that the reliefs prayed for by
the petitioner cannot be granted. The petitioner is a third party to the contract.
He cannot seek enforcement of the contract in the guise of a public interest
litigation, which will have the effect of affecting the rights inter se between the
builder and the owner of the ship. In that view of the matter, we decline
jurisdiction and dismiss the writ petition.
W.P.(C).No.37103 of 2007-S – 3 –
(5) Towards the end of the arguments, the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner made a prayer that the second interim prayer made in
the writ petition may be granted. The second interim relief sought in the writ
petition reads:
“(ii) to direct the 3rd respondent to arrange travel facility from
Cochin/Kozhikode to and fro the UT by another passenger vessel
of the capacity of m.v Kavaratti at the expense of the 3rd respondent
forthwith until the delivery and commissioning of m.v Kavaratti,
pending disposal of this writ petition”.
(6) We are at a loss to understand how the second interim prayer
can be granted when it has no bearing on the issue raised in the writ petition and
is not ancillary or incidental to the main prayers in the writ petition. We decline the
said prayer also.
(7) In our considered opinion, the writ petition lacks merits and is
liable to be rejected. We accordingly dismiss the writ petition.
H.L.Dattu
Chief Justice
P.N.Ravindran
Judge
vku/-