2011 INSC 0649
                             SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                                Research Foundn. for Science

                                                Vs.

                                     Union of India (UOI)

                     (G.S. Singhvi and Chandramauli Kr. Prasad JJ.)

                                           25.05.2011

                                             ORDER

1. In this application filed by Ship Recycling Association (India), prayer has been
made to restrain the Gujarat Maritime Board (for short, 'the Board') from
auctioning the four vacant plots measuring 120 square meters at Alang Ship-
Recycling Yard and to direct the Board to amalgamate and/or convert the existing
smaller plots measuring 30 square meters into bigger plots before auctioning the
four vacant plots.

2. While, learned Counsel for the applicant heavily relied upon the
recommendations made by the Standing Monitoring Committee on Ship Breaking
Yard at Alang which is said to have recommended for merger of the available plots
with the smaller plots, learned Counsel representing the Board submitted that in
view of the provisions contained in the Gujarat Maritime Board Act, 1981 (for
short, "the Act"), the Gujarat Maritime Board (Conditions and Procedures for
Granting Permission for Utilising Ship Recycling Plots) Regulations, 2006 (for
short, "the Regulations") and the policy framed by the Board for
amalgamation/merger of the existing plots, the smaller plots on which the members
of the applicant association are carrying their operations, cannot be merged with
the four plots proposed to be auctioned. Learned Counsel also produced site map to
show that the plots proposed to be auctioned are far away from the 30 square
meters plots and argued that the same cannot be amalgamated or merged with the
smaller plots.

3. We have considered the respective submissions and carefully perused the
documents on which reliance has been placed by learned Counsel for the parties.

Law Information Center  1  SpotLaw
We have also gone through the provisions of the Act and the Regulations as also
the guidelines framed by the Board for amalgamation of the plots.

4. In our view, the prayer made by the applicant is thoroughly misconceived and
there is no valid ground, much less, justification for restraining the Board from
auctioning the four plots or for issue of a direction for conversion of the existing
smaller plots into bigger plots by adding portions of the four plots with the smaller
plots. Although, there is some dispute between the parties about the exact distance
between the smaller plots on which members of the applicant association are
carrying their operations, they are ad idem that two kinds of plots are situated at
some distance. The Regulations framed by the Board in exercise of the power
conferred upon it under Sections 37, 38, 39, 41 and 110 of the Act and Clause-A of
the guidelines do not permit for amalgamation of the plots by shifting the existing
plots to another plot location. The guidelines also prohibit amalgamation of two
working plots. In terms of Sub-clause (2) of Clause-A, the vacant plot located in
between two working plots having 30 square meters width can be offered to both
adjoining plot holders in equal measure. However, there is no provision for
amalgamation of larger plots with the smaller plots irrespective of the distance
between two plots. Therefore, there is no warrant for staying the auction of the four
plots measuring 120 square meters or for issue of a direction to the Board to merge
portions of the bigger plots with the smaller plots.

5. In the result, the application is dismissed.

Law Information Center  2  SpotLaw