T J JOSEPH Vs. DIRECTOR GENERAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these writ petitions relate to the movement order issued to the petitioners to proceed to Kavarati Island, Union Territory of Lakshadweep on deployment as per Ext.P6 order dated 9.1.2018. The parties and documents referred to in these cases are as described in W.P(c) .No.1085/2018.

(2.) Petitioners in W.P(c) .No.1085/2018 are Engine Drivers and the petitioners in W.P(c) .No.1086/2018 are Sarang Lascar and Lascar I Class respectively in the Coast Guard working under the 3rd respondent. The grievance of the petitioners is that their deployment is ordered without considering the fact that they are not qualified or competent to operate the ship or move on-board, in accordance with the provisions contained in Merchant Shipping Act and the International Conventions.

(3.) It is stated that 4 auxiliary barges were built in the Shoft Shipyard Baroch in Gujarat for the Coast Guard, in order to provide indigenously built barges for supplying fuel and water to the coast guard ships. 'ICGS Urja Srotha' was built for Kochi. The petitioners submit that they along with Coast Guard officers brought the auxiliary barge from Gujarat to Kochi. It is their case that even though they were given some training, they are not qualified to operate barges which weigh more than 325 tonnes. The engines are also having 850 BHP each. On coming to know about the move to send them along with the crew members to Kavarati with the barges, the petitioners submitted Exts.P3 and P4 representations requesting the 2nd respondent not to send them to Kavarati. It was thereafter that Ext.P6 movement order was issued on 9.1.2018 directing them to proceed to Kavarati Island. According to them, they have to handle the huge barge over the high seas to Kavarati for which they do not have any expertise, qualification or health. Producing Ext.P7 certificate of competency issued to the 1st petitioner it is pointed out that he is only qualified to operate a boat as per Canals and Ferries Act VI 1096. In the case of the 2nd petitioner it is stated that his competency as engine driver is only in respect of motor vessels having engines less than 226 BHP plying in the Port of Cochin only, as seen from Ext.P8.