M/S ENVITECH MARINE CONSULTANTS V/S  UNION OF INDIA (AIR2021)

CITATION  :	AIR 2021 SC2178 AIRONLINE2021 SC226
DATE OF JUDGEMENT:	12 APRIL 2021
COURT  :	SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
APPELLANT  :	M/S ENVITECH MARINE CONSUTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED AND ORS.
RESPONDENT :	UNION OF INDIA
BENCH  :	V.RAMASUBRAMNIAN, A.S. BOPANNA, S.A.BOBDE

INTRODUCTION:

In the case of M/S Envitech Marine Consultants Private Limited and Others VS. Union Of India , the petitioners sought a ‘NO Objection Certificate’(NOC) from the Ministry of Defence to convert the decommissioned warship INS Viraat into a memorial. The Ministry of Defence had previously decided to scrap the warship due to financial liabilities and arranged for its sale through a public auction conducted by MSTC Limited. The petitioners approached the High Court of Bombay after their proposal was not addressed, but the High Court merely directed the Union of India to dispose of the petitioners’ pending representation without commenting on the merits of the case. Dissatisfied with this outcome, the petitioners escalated the matter to the Supreme Court through Special Leave Petitions.

The Supreme Court, after hearing both sides, observed that the petitioners had not complied with certain conditions set by the second respondent, the highest bidder in the auction, and noted that significant dismantling work had already been undertaken. The Ministry of Defence had also rejected the petitioners’ representation, a decision that was not contested. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, highlighting the impracticality of intervening at that stage despite acknowledging the petitioners’ sentiments. This case underscores the complexities involved in balancing public interest, governmental decisions, and individual initiatives in preserving historical artifacts.

FACTS OF THE CASE:

1. INS Viraat, formerly HMS Hermes, served the British Navy from 1959 to 1984 and was commissioned into the Indian Navy in 1987.The government decided to scrap INS Viraat due to the financial burden of its upkeep and the lack of interest from state governments.

2. A public auction held in December 2019 was cancelled due to insufficient bids. In a subsequent auction, the second respondent became the highest bidder and was issued a delivery order after making a total payment of approximately Rs. 38.54 crores.

3. The petitioners sought to convert INS Viraat into a maritime museum and adventure center with support from various corporate houses. Blackstone Corporation, Canada, issued a Letter of Interest to the petitioners.

Petitioners submitted a proposal to the Ministry of Defence and were asked to obtain a NOC from the Government of Goa.

The Chief Minister of Goa agreed to issue a NOC provided the Ministry of Defence approved the proposal and no financial obligations fell upon the state government.

4. Fresh tenders were opened, and the second respondent was awarded the contract.The ship was permanently beached, and dismantling began. The petitioners approached the second respondent, who conditioned their support on obtaining a NOC from the Government of India and meeting specific financial and logistical deadlines, which the petitioners could not meet.

5. Petitioners filed a writ petition in the High Court of Bombay, which directed the Union of India to decide on the petitioners’ representation without commenting on its merits.

6. Unsatisfied with this order, the petitioners filed Special Leave Petitions in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court initially ordered a status quo on dismantling the ship but later dismissed the Special Leave Petitions, noting that dismantling work had significantly progressed and the Ministry of Defence had rejected the petitioners’ representation.

ISSUES RAISED :

1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to a ‘No Objection Certificate’(NOC) from the Ministry of Defence to convert INS Viraat into a maritime museum and adventure center?

2. Whether the High Court of Bombay’s order, which directed the Union of India to decide on the decide on petitioners representation without commenting on its merits, was appropriate?

3. Whether the petitioners could fulfill the conditions stipulated by the second respondent and other authorities for converting the warship into a museum?

CONTENTION OF APPEALENT :

1. The petitioners aimed to preserve INS Viraat as a memorial to promote and strengthen the traditions, history, and heritage of the Indian and British Navies. They intended to convert the warship into a maritime museum and adventure center, which would serve as a tribute to its historical significance.

2. The petitioners approached various corporate houses to create a public-private partnership for the project. They received a Letter of Interest from Blackstone Corporation, Canada, indicating potential support for their proposal.

3. The petitioners had submitted a proposal to the Ministry of Defence and were asked to obtain a NOC from the Government of Goa. The Chief Minister of Goa agreed to issue the NOC, provided the Ministry of Defence approved the proposal and no financial obligations fell on the state government.

4. The petitioners filed a writ petition in the High Court of Bombay seeking a directive for the Ministry of Defence to issue the NOC. They were dissatisfied with the High Court’s order directing the Union of India to decide on their representation without addressing the merits of their claim. They subsequently filed Special Leave Petitions in the Supreme Court, seeking to overturn the High Court’s order and obtain the necessary permissions to preserve INS Viraat.

 CONTENTION OF RESPONDENT:

1. The respondent argued that the Ministry of Defence had made a well-considered decision to scrap the warship INS Viraat due to the financial burden of its upkeep. No state government was willing to take on the financial responsibility of maintaining the ship.

2. The decommissioned vessel was put up for sale through a public auction arranged by the Metal Scrap Trade Corporation Limited (MSTC Ltd). The second respondent emerged as the highest bidder in the subsequent tender process.

3. The Respondent argued that the petitioners failed to meet the conditions set by the second respondent, which included:

• Obtaining a NOC from the Government of India.
• Ensuring 100% payment by October 12, 2020.
• Meeting the deadline to pull the ship towards the ocean by October 15, 2020.

4. Hence the Ministry of Defence rejected the petitioners’ representation on November 27, 2020. This decision was not challenged by the petitioners, rendering their claim effectively void without the required NOC.

5. By the time the respondents had filed the Special Leave Petitions  when approximately 35-40% of the dismantling work had already been completed. The vessel had sustained severe hull damage, was stripped of operational manuals, navigational items, and communication devices, and was in a ‘grounded condition’, essentially a dead structure.  And hence The High Court of Bombay did not recognize any right in favor of the petitioners but simply directed the Union of India to address the petitioners’ representation. The High Court’s decision did not support the petitioners’ entitlement to a NOC or any halt in the dismantling process.

6. The Respondents urged to Continue the dismantling was in the public interest, as reversing the process would involve significant financial and logistical challenges, and the warship was no longer in a condition suitable for conversion into a museum.

In light of these arguments, the respondents contended that the petitioners’ request was impractical and unfeasible, and the decision to dismiss the Special Leave Petitions was justified.

 JUGDEMENT :

The supreme Court noted three critical factual aspects:

1. The petitioners could not meet the conditions set by the second respondent for supporting their preservation project.

2. The Ministry of Defence’s rejection of the petitioners’ representation, which was not legally contested by the petitioners, effectively ended their aspirations.

3. The ship had already been significantly dismantled, with severe structural damage and the removal of vital equipment, rendering it a “dead structure.”

The Court acknowledged the petitioners’ sentiments and efforts but finds that judicial intervention is impractical at this advanced stage. The dismantling work has progressed too far, and the Ministry of Defence’s rejection stands uncontested. Therefore, the Special Leave Petitions were dismissed.

While appreciating the petitioners’ intentions to preserve naval heritage, the judges emphasizes the importance of timely and feasible actions within legal and administrative constraints. It reaffirms the limitations of judicial intervention in cases where procedural lapses and practical impossibilities were evident.

 CONCLUSION :

The case highlights the importance of timely and feasible actions within legal and administrative constraints. The Court’s decision underscores the limitations of judicial intervention in cases involving procedural lapses and practical impossibilities. The judgment serves as a reminder of the need for procedural compliance and timely legal actions in preservation efforts.

The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petitions filed by M/S Envitech Marine Consultants Pvt. Ltd. and others, recognizing their commendable efforts to preserve INS Viraat. However, due to the Ministry of Defence’s uncontested rejection of their NOC request and the advanced stage of the ship’s dismantling, judicial intervention was deemed impractical. The case underscores the importance of timely procedural compliance and the limitations of judicial remedies in the face of significant practical and administrative challenges.

ANALYSIS :

The Supreme Court’s decision to dismiss the petitions seems justifiable given the circumstances. The advanced stage of dismantling and the petitioners’ failure to comply with procedural requirements significantly limited the Court’s ability to provide relief.

While the intention to preserve INS Viraat was commendable and reflected a desire to honor naval history, the practical and legal hurdles were insurmountable. This case underscores the importance of timely action and procedural compliance in pursuing preservation projects. Additionally, it highlights the challenges faced by private entities in navigating bureaucratic processes and securing necessary approvals for heritage conservation.

In my opinion, while the judgment is fair, it also brings to light the need for more supportive frameworks and streamlined processes for heritage preservation initiatives in India. This could potentially prevent such scenarios where valuable historical assets are lost due to procedural and administrative delays.

REFERENCES:

1. SCC Online
2. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/11779259/
3. https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2020/27922/27922_2020_31_3_27454_judgement_12-Apr-2021

This Article is written by Sakshi Patil student of KES Shri Jayantilal H. Patel Law College, Mumbai; Intern at Legal Vidhiya
Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.