JUDGMENT Ajit Kumar Sengupta, J. 1. On 23.5.1984 two writ applications were moved by one Ramniwas Chaudhury, a ship breaker challenging the guidelines dated 20.9.1982 issued by the Metal Scrap Trading Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as MSTC) to regulate the sale of inter alia Indian Flag vessels for scrapping, the alleged failure and/or refusal to grant no objection certificate by MSTC and the alleged failure of Scindia Steam Navigation Company Limited (for the sake of brevity hereinafter referred to as Scindia) to complete the deal in regard to sale of two vessels namely M.V. Jalatarang and M.V. Jalagirija belonging to Scindia. Two several writ applications have been made, one in respect of M.V. Jalatarang and the other in respect of M.V. Jalagirija. The contentions raised in the said two writ applications are identical and are disposed of by one common order. 2. The facts and circumstances mentioned in the said writ petitions are stated hereinafter. On or about 14.3.1984 Scindia advertised in the Times of India for sale of M.V. Jalatarang as is where is basis for further trading. An advertisement was also inserted on 20.12.1983 by Scindia in the Statesman for sale of M.V. Jalagirija for plying purpose subject to the permission of the Government of India. In the case of sale of M.V. Jalatarang no time limit was fixed for receiving the offers but in the case of M.V. Jalagirija 31.12.1983 was fixed as the last date for receiving the offers. 3. By two several letters dated 20.4.1984 the writ petitioner intimated Scindia that he intended to purchase the aforesaid two vessels, namely, M.V. Jalatarang at a price of Rs. 80 lakhs and M.V. Jalagirija at a price of Rs. 70 lakhs for scrapping purpose only. He would also pay the usual custom duty based on international trade price and also 4% charges payable to MSTC subject, inter alia to the permission from the Director General of Shipping and "No Objection Certificate" from MSTC. 4. In response to the said offer letters of the writ petitioner dated 20.4.1984 Scindia by their letter dated 27.4.1984 informed the writ petitioner that although the advertisement of Scindia was for sale for plying purposes, Scindia has received necessary permission from the Director General of Shipping for selling the said vessels for scrapping and they would have to approach MSTC for getting clearance before acting on the sanction. It has also been stated in the said letters by Scindia in respect of each of the said vessels as follows:- "In this connection we have to inform you that we are ready and willing to sell the above vessels to you for scrapping purposes provided you can obtain the required "No Objection Certificate" from Metal Scrap Trading Corporation Limited for our selling this vessel to you for scrapping purposes as per terms and conditions stated in your above letter." 5. Copies of the said two letters dated 27.4.1984 of Scindia were forwarded to MSTC with a request to MSTC for issuance of "No Objection Certificate" for custom purpose. 6. It appears that in response to letters dated 15.3.1984 of Scindia, the Director General of Shipping approved, in principle for the sale of said two vessels for scrapping in India subject to certain conditions mentioned in the letters dated 10.4.1984 of the Assistant Director General of Shipping addressed to Scindia. It may be mentioned that Scindia issued an advertisement on 14.3.1984 for sale of M.V. Jalatarang as is where is basis for further trading and the application for permission to sell the said vessel for scrapping was made to the Director General of Shipping on 15.3.1984. 7. It is necessary to set out in detail the contents of .the letters dated 10.4.1984 of the Assistant Director General of shipping which are in identical items excepting the name of the vessel as much reliance has been placed on the contents of the said letters by the counsel for the respective parties. The contents of the said letter are to the following effect:- "I am to refer to your letter No. OP/TECH/4240 dated 15.3.1984 on the above subject and to convey the approval of the Director General, in principle, for the sale of your vessel Jalatarang for scrapping in India subject to the following conditions:- (i) Formal sanction as required under section 42(1) of the M.S. Act, 1958 be issued on hearing from you the name of the buyer and sale price. (ii) The vessel should be free from all encumbrances at the time of sale, including satisfactory settlement of wages of officers/crew of the vessel and loans from any financial institutions etc. (iii) The sale proceeds should be remitted to the SDFC for adjustments against your dues if any to them. (ii) The vessel should be free from all encumbrances at the time of sale, including satisfactory settlement of wages of officers/crew of the vessel and loans from any financial institutions etc. (iii) The sale proceeds should be remitted to the SDFC for adjustments against your dues if any to them. (iv) All documents including Naval should be returned to the authorities concerned before delivering the vessel to scrappers. You may as usual approach the MSTC for getting their clearance before acting on the sanction." 8. By two several letters dated 30.4.1984 the writ petitioner informed MSTC that his offer for purchase of the said two vessels for the purpose of breaking up at Calcutta had since been accepted by Scindia, inter alia, on the conditions that the writ petitioner would obtain a "No Objection Certificate" from MSTC. Accordingly, the writ petitioner requested MSTC to issue "No Objection Certificate" on the undertaking of the writ petitioner to pay MSTC the commission of 4% on the said vessel. Thereafter, by two several letters dated 15.5.1984 the writ petitioner reminded MSTC to issue the necessary "No Objection Certificate" as expeditiously as possible upon the writ petitioner paying 4% MSTC service charge. 9. By two other letters dated 15.5.1984, the writ petitioner purported to have demanded justice from MSTC for their failure or refusal to grant "No Objection Certificate" even after the writ petitioner agreeing to pay service charge at the rate of 4%. 10. On 23.5.1984, I issued Rule Nisi as it appeared to me that MSTC being a Government Canalsing Agency cannot act arbitrarily. I also issued an interim order directing MSTC to issue "No Objection Certificate" in favour of the writ petitioner on payment of 4% service charges on the sale price of each of the said vessels. MSTC was directed to issue "No Objection Certificate" within three days from the date of payment of the said service charges and upon production of evidence in support of the payment. The matter was directed to appear in my list on 30.5.1984 for orders giving liberty to the respondents to ask for variation and/or modification of the interim order. Liberty was given to Scindia to conclude the transaction after "No Objection Certificate" was issued by MSTC. 11. On 25.5.1984 the matter was mentioned on behalf of MSTC. It was submitted that MSTC was unable to issue "No Objection Certificate" for various reasons. Liberty was given to Scindia to conclude the transaction after "No Objection Certificate" was issued by MSTC. 11. On 25.5.1984 the matter was mentioned on behalf of MSTC. It was submitted that MSTC was unable to issue "No Objection Certificate" for various reasons. I, therefore, directed MSTC not to issue "No Objection Certificate" till 1.6.1984 giving the reasons for withholding "No objection Certificate" even after payment of 4% service charges. 12. A further fact requires to be mentioned. On 30.5.1984 two separate applications have been filed by S.S. Jain & Co. for being added as party respondent in the said two writ petitions. The allegations of the applicant for being added as party respondent are that the vessels in question were sought to be sold by advertisement on as is where is basis for further trading and/or for plying purposes and as such the applicant, a scrap dealer and ship-breaker could not make any offer for purchase of any of the said vessels. Those who are interested in buying ship for breaking could not do so because of the said advertisements. As soon as the applicant came to know about the said purported sale of the said vessels for scrapping, the applicant has offered Rs. 85 lakhs for purchase of M.V. Jalatarang and Rs. 72.5 lakhs for M.V. Jalagirija. It has been alleged that the said advertisements for sale were issued purposely to mislead other bonafide offerers including the applicant so that the applicant or other intended offerer would not make any offer and the vessels could be sold for scrapping to the writ petitioner without there being any competition from other ship breakers. The applicant therefore prayed for leave to intervene in the proceeding or alternatively asked for being added as party respondent. 13. The said applications of S.S. Jain & Co. for being added as party respondent were allowed. Liberty was given to the said added respondent to file affidavits. The added respondent also filed two separate writ applications, inter alia, praying that MSTC should be restrained from issuing "No Objection Certificate" for the sale of the said two ships to the writ petitioner. Rule Nisi was issued and having regard to the interim order passed in the writ application no other interim order was issued in the two writ applications filed by S.S. Jain & Company. Thereafter, the writ petitioners submitted that S.S. Jain & Co. Rule Nisi was issued and having regard to the interim order passed in the writ application no other interim order was issued in the two writ applications filed by S.S. Jain & Company. Thereafter, the writ petitioners submitted that S.S. Jain & Co. are not interested in proceeding with the matter and therefore the matter can be heard in their absence. S.S. Jain & Co. in their letter dated 14.6.1984 addressed to MSTC and Scindia stated that after inspection of the vessels they found the said vessels are not worth the offers made by them. The said letters are kept on record. 14. After the affidavits have been filed and when the matter came up for hearing, two other applications were filed by one Jai Bharat Steel Co., a ship breaker for being added as party respondent to the said writ applications. I did not allow the said applicant to be added as party at this stage but leave was given to intervene in this matter. 15. One P.L. Tikmany has also moved two several writ applications in respect of the said two vessels. The contention are identical with that of M/s. S.S. Jain & Company raised in their two writ applications. The two writ applications of P.L. Tikmany are also heard along with these applications inasmuch as the issues are common in all the matters. 16. Before I deal with the contentions or the learned Counsel appearing for the parties it is necessary to set out at this stage some of the relevant clauses of the general guidelines dated 20.9.1982 issued by Metal Scrap Trade Corporation Limited for sale and purchase of Indian Flag Ships/vessels including Naval Ships/vessels/Indian/Foreign Flag Ships/ vessels arrested or Wrecks through duly appointed Receivers and Foreign Flag Ships/ vessels disabled/immobilized in Indian Waters for the purpose of scrapping canalized through MSTC under the Import Policy of 1982-83. 17. The said Guidelines, as it appears, were issued under the Import Policy of 1982-83 Appendix B of the said Import Policy contains list of items, import of which is canalized through public sector agencies Serial No. 54 of the said Appendix specifies old ships, vessels etc. for breaking and MSTC is named as the canalizing agency. The relevant clauses are as follows:- "1. Under the Import Policy of the Government of India, the Import of old Indian flag ship/vessels etc. for breaking and MSTC is named as the canalizing agency. The relevant clauses are as follows:- "1. Under the Import Policy of the Government of India, the Import of old Indian flag ship/vessels etc. for breaking is canalized through the Metal Scrap Trade Corporation limited, Calcutta. 2. Only those ships/vessels for which permission has been in writing by the Director General of Shipping for sale of the vessel for scrapping, would be considered for import by MSTC. (Notes: Naval ships/vessels do not require permission from the Director General of Shipping for disposal and as such this Clause is not applicable for disposal and of naval ships/vessels.) 4. If MSTC agrees for the sale of the ships/vessels. then depending upon the method of disposal opted by the ship-owner/agent, MSTC would either take necessary steps for issuing notice for invitation of tender from among bonafide ship breaking units who have registered their demands in the manner prescribed for such registration under Clause 5, 6 and 7 below. In case the ship-owner/Agents opts for direct tendering by themselves as per the method of disposal vide Clause 8.4 below, MSTC will furnish the list of bonafide ship breaking units to the ship-owner/agent for the purpose of issue of notice for invitation to tender. 8. Mode of Disposal. 8.1. All disposals shall be through tender either through MSTC (vide clause 8.3) or directly by the ship owner/agent (vide clause 8.4) as per procedure outlined below among those bonafide ship breakers who have registered their demands with MSTC for ship breaking at the concerned port or at other site. 8.2. In both methods of disposal, the buyer should pay to MSTC service charge @ 4% of the purchase price by way of Demand Draft/Pay Order of any scheduled bank payable at Calcutta. Suitable Clause should be incorporated in the tender documents for this purpose. 8.4. Disposal through direct tender by the owner/their agent:- The ship-owners or their agents may invite tender directly from the bonafide eligible ship breakers. A model tender form and a model sale agreement form based on the standard terms & conditions of tender/sale agreement as per Annexure II and III respectively should be sent to MSTC, along with necessary details as per Surplus Report Form (Vide Annexure I), for approval by MSTC. A model tender form and a model sale agreement form based on the standard terms & conditions of tender/sale agreement as per Annexure II and III respectively should be sent to MSTC, along with necessary details as per Surplus Report Form (Vide Annexure I), for approval by MSTC. Care should be taken in the preparation of tender forms to set that an interval of not less than 7 days is given between the issue of tender documents and last date of submission of bids. The owner/agent should also ensure that all available information regarding the ship/vessel is included in the tender and if any item(s) is/are to be removed from the vessel before the delivery, the same should be specifically mentioned in the tender. The tender should be negotiated as per the procedure given in para 8.5 below in the presence of MSTC representative and thereafter the details should be immediately submitted by the owner/agent to MSTC as per the enclosed proforma (Vide Annexure IV) along with a signed copy of the comparative statement of the quotations received for consideration and approval by MSTC. Once a sale is approved by MSTC, the ship-owner agent may issue the Sale Acceptance letter to the successful tenderer and execute a Sale Agreement as per the model sale agreement already approved by MSTC. Five (5 copies of Sale Agreement duly signed by the seller and the buyer should be submitted to MSTC. Four copies of the Sale Agreement will be returned two each for the seller and the buyer, duty countersigned by MSTC) All costs in this connection will be borne by the owner/Agent." 18. There is nothing unusual or extraordinary in these guidelines issued by the MSTC. MSTC can as a Canalizing Agency prescribe the guidelines if ships are imported for breaking. If the guidelines are applicable, no sale of an imported vessel for breaking can be effected without obtaining "No Objection Certificate" from MSTC. It is therefore necessary to consider whether the vessels in question have been imported by MSTC and whether MSTC is a canalizing agent in so far as breaking of the said two vessels are concerned after import. 19. Mr. Somnath Chatterjee learned Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner has submitted that MSTC is not and cannot be a canalized agency in respect of the ships in question. 19. Mr. Somnath Chatterjee learned Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner has submitted that MSTC is not and cannot be a canalized agency in respect of the ships in question. Jalagirija was built in 1963 and was acquired by Scindia as a second hand unit on 22.10.1968 whereas Jalatarang was built in 1963 and was acquired by Scindia as second hand unit on 5.8.1969. Therefore, the import of the two vessels took place in 1968-69 when Scindia acquired the said two vessels MSTC became a canalized agency much later and MSTC can only be treated as a canalized agency if the ships are now imported. Mr. Chatterjee, therefore, contends .hat the Guidelines issued by MSTC in respect of the ships sold for breaking purposes cannot apply in this instant case and "No Objection Certificate" from MSTC is not at all necessary for completing the transactions of the two vessels. In any event MSTC cannot withhold the "No Objection Certificate" as the writ petitioner has paid the service charges to MSTC, as specified in their Guidelines. He has also contended that the Director General of Shipping has granted the permission to Scindia for sale of the two vessels for scrapping purpose and now at this stage MSTC not being a canalized agency cannot impose any restrictions in respect of the sale of the said two vessels. Mr. Chatterjee has relied on a decision of this court in the case of Additional Collector of Customs vs. Sitaram, AIR 1962 Cal. 242 , where it has been held that the act of importation was complete when the goods cross the custom barriers. 20. The said judgment of this court has been approved by the Supreme Court in the case Radhakrishan vs. Union of India, AIR 1965 SC 1072 . In that case Supreme Court held that the offences of importation of goods is complete when the goods cross the customs frontier. Mr. Chatterjee has relied on the decision of Bombay High Court in the case of M.S. Shawhney vs. Messrs. Sylvania & Laxman Limited, 77 Bombay LR 380, to emphasize that once the importation is complete when the ships arrived at the Indian Waters. MSTC cannot at this stage regulate the sale of vessels which were imported in 1968 or 1969. Mr. Chatterjee has relied on the decision of Bombay High Court in the case of M.S. Shawhney vs. Messrs. Sylvania & Laxman Limited, 77 Bombay LR 380, to emphasize that once the importation is complete when the ships arrived at the Indian Waters. MSTC cannot at this stage regulate the sale of vessels which were imported in 1968 or 1969. He has also relied on a decision of this court reported in the case of Union of India & other vs. Ramniwas Chaudhury, 1983 (1) CHN 6 . He has submitted that from this decision it is crystal clear that the duty if any, payable in respect of the said vessels has to be paid at the rate which was in force when the said ships were imported and not the duty prevalent now when the ships are being sold for the purpose of breaking. This will also go to show that importation took place long ago when MSTC had no part to play in such importation. Alternatively he has contended that even assuming that MSTC can regulate the sale of the ships "No Objection Certificate" for sale of the two vessels in question cannot be withheld inasmuch as Scindia has obtained the sanction of the Director General of Shipping under section 42 of the Merchants Shipping Act, 1958. 21. Mr. Dipankar Ghosh, the learned Counsel appearing for MSTC has submitted that there is a deemed import when the ship is sold for breaking. No duty was leviable when the ships were imported but at the time when the ships are sold for breaking the customs duties are leviable. Therefore, there is a notional import at the time when the ships are sold for breaking. Thus MSTC can regulate the sale of the said two vessels in question. The price offered by the writ petitioner for sale of the said two vessels are abnormally low in comparison of the price at which such ships have been sold by MSTC at the recent time. Therefore, the MSTC can, withhold the issue of the "No Objection Certificate" so long a fair market price is not offered for the sale of the ships in question. Therefore, the MSTC can, withhold the issue of the "No Objection Certificate" so long a fair market price is not offered for the sale of the ships in question. He has further submitted that even assuming that MSTC cannot regulate the sale not being a canalized agency the Government can always impose restriction under section 42 of the Merchants Shipping Act, 1958 before sanction is granted for sale of the said ships. In this case sanction has not yet been granted as is evident from the letter dated 10.4.1984 of the Director General of Shipping. Upon furnishing of the particulars by Scindia the question of granting sanction will arise. The Government can always impose restrictions or conditions before any sanction is granted for sale of the said vessels. 22. He has further submitted that the writ petitioner has no locus standi to move this application against MSTC. It is only Scindia who can be said to be aggrieved if at all, if no sanction is granted or if "No Objection Certificate" is not issued by MSTC to Scindia. At this stage the writ petitioner cannot have any grievance whatsoever. 23. The concept of importation has been laid down by this court in the decision referred to by Mr. Somnath Chatterjee, learned Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner. Although in that case Additional Collector of Customs vs. Sitaram (supra) the court was considering the meaning of the word importation in the context of the expression concerned in occurring in sub-section (8) of section 167 of the Sea Customs Act, 1878 but the meaning given to the word importation will equally apply in all cases of importation under the Sea Customs Act or the Customs Act of 1962. It has been clearly laid down in that case that a thing is imported when it reaches the borders of the country and if it is imported by water then, as soon as the vessel reaches in an Indian port the process of importation is complete. This view has been approved by the Supreme Court in the case of Radhakrishan vs. Union of India (supra) Chapter 89 of the Customs Tariff of India inter alia, deals with customs duty leviable on ships, boats and other vessels for breaking up. By and under Notification No. 262 CUS dated 11.10.1958 exemption has been allowed to Ocean Going Vessels other then vessels imported to be broken up. By and under Notification No. 262 CUS dated 11.10.1958 exemption has been allowed to Ocean Going Vessels other then vessels imported to be broken up. The said Notification is in the following terms:- "Ocean Going Vessels other than vessels imported to be broken up, are exempt from the payment of Customs duty leviable thereon provided that any such vessel subsequently broken up shall be chargeable with the duty which would be payable on her if she were imported to be broken up." 24. This Court in the case of Union of India & other vs. Ramniwas Chaudhury (supra) has held that the date of importation of the vessel is very much relevant for the purpose of calculation of the customs duty. If a vessel is subsequently broken up the exemption from duty is lost and the duty will be payable on the said vessel at the rate in force on the date of the importation of the vessel. No duty can be levied at the rate in force when the vessel is sold for breaking up. The importation is complete when the two vessels in this case have entered the Indian waters in 1968 and 1969 as the case may be. The Customs duty will be payable at the rate which was prevalent at that time not at the rate now in force. In that view of the matter it is not possible, to accept the argument of Mr. Dipankar Ghosh, learned Counsel appearing for MSTC that there is a notional importation at or about the date when the vessels are sold for breaking up. So far as these two ships are concerned MSTC cannot be treated as a canalizing agency became the importation is complete long ago when admittedly MSTC was not a canalizing agency. If the contention of Mr. Ghosh is accepted that there is a notional import at the time when the vessels are sold for breaking, then another fiction has to be introduced by permitting the customs authorities to levy custom duty at the rate in force when the ships are sold for breaking up and not at the rate in force when the ships were actually imported. In other words, the date of importation will be the date of breaking up. There is only one deeming in the said notification and not two deemings as sought to be contended by Mr. Ghosh. In other words, the date of importation will be the date of breaking up. There is only one deeming in the said notification and not two deemings as sought to be contended by Mr. Ghosh. The notification does not warrant for such proposition. Unless the import is made by MSTC as a canalizing agent it cannot impose any restriction on the sale of such vessels for breaking. MSTC has no jurisdiction as canalizing agent in respect of the vessels the import of which was complete much before MSTC came into existence. Since in this case importation was made by the owner long ego while MSTC was not a canalizing agency, the guidelines issued to MSTC cannot be made applicable to these two vessels. No "No objection Certificate" is required to be obtained by Scindia for effecting the transactions in question. I am also unable to accept the other contention of Mr. Ghosh that MSTC can regulate the distribution of such vessels even if not imported by MSTC. Import Policy will only apply to a case of import of an item and subsequent distribution thereof. If the import policy has no application, the question of distribution of any such item as a canalized item cannot arise. In any event, this is not a case of distribution at all. 25. The next contention is that as no sanction has been obtained by Scindia for sale of the two vessels in question under section 42(1) of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958 and unless such sanction is obtained, Scindia cannot sell the ships. Section 42(1) provides that no person shall transfer or acquire any Indian ships or any share or interest therein without the prior approval of the Central Government. This is a mandatory provision and any acquisition or transfer without the prior approval of the Central Government shall be void and unenforceable. It is, therefore, necessary to consider whether the Central Government has accorded any sanction to the sale of vessels in question. Although notice was served on the Director General of Shipping who is the competent authority to grant sanction for sale of the vessels. No one has appeared at the hearing on behalf of the Director General. This is really unfortunate. Although notice was served on the Director General of Shipping who is the competent authority to grant sanction for sale of the vessels. No one has appeared at the hearing on behalf of the Director General. This is really unfortunate. It is true that section 42(1) requires the permission of the Central Government before the sale is effected of any Indian ship, such approval cannot be unreasonably withheld by the Central Government. In the very nature of things the Central Government may impose restrictions or conditions before any sanction is granted for sale of any Indian Ship and particularly then the ships are sold for breaking. It is no doubt true that in the letter dated 10.4.1984 the Director General has granted approval for sale of the two vessels for scrapping purpose in principle but no formal sanction has been granted as yet. It has been stated in the said letter dated 10.4.1984 that formal sanction under section 42 (1) of the said Act shall be issued on receipt of communication from Scindia about the name of the buyer and the sale price. After the said information is furnished by Scindia the Government may grant the formal sanction or may impose conditions if the Government is of the opinion that either the buyer or the sale price of the vessels is not acceptable to the Central Government. It may be that in a case a buyer for his activities may have been blacklisted and Central Government may not accord any sanction for sale of any vessel to such a person. Similarly if the Central Government is of the opinion that the price offered is not adequate or does not reflect the fair price or International market price it may also withhold sanction for sale of such ship. Such opinion, however, has to be formed on objective facts. It may be that in forming the opinion the Central Government may obtain the views or suggestion of MSTC who had issued the guidelines for sale of vessels imported by MSTC as a canalizing agent. In that context MSTC may have some part to play indirectly but not directly as the ships are not imported by them. I am unable to accept the contention of Mr. In that context MSTC may have some part to play indirectly but not directly as the ships are not imported by them. I am unable to accept the contention of Mr. Chatterjee that grant of formal sanction by the Central Government (Director General of Shipping) is a mere formality as sanction in substance has been accorded by the letter dated 10.4.1984. It will be evident from the contents of the said letter as well as from the letter of Scindia that no formal sanction was accorded by the Director General of Shipping. In this connection reply of Scindia dated 27.4.1984 to the said letter dated 10.4.1984 of the Director General may be referred to. The letter dated 27.4.1984 inter alia contains the following:- "We have now received offers from a ship breaking firm in Calcutta M/s Choudhury Ship breaking Co. for purchase of our vessels M.V. Jalagirija and M.V. Jalatarang for scrapping purposes. We are enclosing herewith their letters both dated 20.4.1984 giving us the offers together with our reply thereto which are self explanatory. Under the present circumstances, we consider their offers to be good. As these offers are only valid for 30 days that is upto 20.5.1984, we shall feel grateful if you will kindly prevail over MSTC to let us have their "No Objection Certificate" for the sale of our M.V. Jalagirija the price of Rs. 70 lakhs and M.V. Jalatarang at the price of Rs. 80 lakhs in favour of M/s Choudhury Ship breaking Co. Calcutta for scrapping. In view of the difficulties already being faced by us for setting the vessels for scrapping purposes, your positive intervention in this respect will be highly appreciated." 26. It appears that no reply to the said letter has yet been received by Scindia nor any formal sanction has yet been obtained for sale of the two vessels. It is significant to note that in the said letter dated 27.4.1984 asking for the formal sanction. Scindia has stated that the price offered by the writ petitioner appears to them to be good. They have not given any comparative chart of the offers received by them so far in respect of the said two vessels, nor there is any details as to why such price should be treated as good for by the Central Government. 27. Scindia has stated that the price offered by the writ petitioner appears to them to be good. They have not given any comparative chart of the offers received by them so far in respect of the said two vessels, nor there is any details as to why such price should be treated as good for by the Central Government. 27. By the time this application has been made on 23.5.1984, the validity of the said offers expired. There is no averment in the petition that there has been any subsequent extension of the said offers by the petitioner. The acceptance of the offers of the writ petitioner by Scindia as contained in the letter dated 27.4.1984 must be read along with their other letter dated 27.4.1984 referred to above addressed to the Director General of Shipping. I am, therefore unable lo accept the contention of Mr. Chatterjee that a concluded agreement has been arrived at by and between the writ petitioner and Scindia in respect of the sale of the said two ships. Even if there is an agreement for sale, it will be effective only after fulfillment of certain conditions. Those conditions are yet to be satisfied. 28. The next question is even if MSTC is not a canalizing agent as indicated earlier can this Court impose conditions for the sale of the two vessels in question? Scindia is a party in this proceeding. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, I am of the view that Court has the power to give suitable direction to Scindia as well to the Central Government for the ends of justice and for avoiding multiplicity of proceedings. It cannot be disputed that the advertisement was issued by Scindia for sale of the said two vessels for plying and/or for trading purposes. The result was that it did not receive many offers. The copies of the Board Resolutions dated 28.4.1984 have been produced before me which are to the following effect:- "Resolved that subject to the permission of the Director General of Shipping, Bombay and SDFC M.V. Jalagirija be disposed of as plying unit/scrap at the best obtainable price." 29. Similar resolution was also passed in respect of the M.V. Jalatarang. The decision was either to sell the said vessels as plying units or for scrapping. But the advertisements mentioned that the ships would be sold for trading purposes. Similar resolution was also passed in respect of the M.V. Jalatarang. The decision was either to sell the said vessels as plying units or for scrapping. But the advertisements mentioned that the ships would be sold for trading purposes. It is submitted that while no offer was received for Jalagirija one offer was received in respect of Jalatarang for purchase of the vessel for further trading. Although the resolutions were passed on 28.3.1984, the advertisement appeared in December, 1983 for the sale of M.V. Jalagirija. It has also been submitted that the details of the sale of Jalagirija had been sent to INSA on 14.12.1983. In the case of Jalatarang the advertisements appeared in March, 1984 in Calcutta, Bombay and Madras on 14.4.1984 and 15.3.1984 the permission was sought for from Director General of Shipping for sale of the said two vessels for scrapping although the resolution was adopted by the Board on 28.3.1984. An offer came from M/s. Bajoria Agency Private Limited who offered to purchase M.V. Jalatarang for Rs. 40,00,000/- for further trading and one D. Silva of Bombay offered a price which was considered by Scindia to be too low and Scindia replied on 20.3.1984 that at least Rs. 90 lakhs should be offered for the sale of Jalatarang. From the aforesaid facts it would be clear that Scindia did not even comply with the resolution of the Board. Mr. Nirmalendu Mitra, learned Counsel appearing for Scindia sought to justify the action of Scindia on the basis of the Board's resolution. In my view Scindia have not acted reasonably or fairly in this matter. The decision to sell the vessels as scrap was taken even before the Board passed the resolution on 28.3.1984, and before any offer either for scrapping or for further trading was received by the Board. The sanction for sale of two of the vessels was sought for before any offer was received or could be received. Thereafter only one offer was received by Scindia that is of the writ petitioner. It is not possible to ascertain whether the offer of the writ petitioner is good or not in absence of any other offer. The sanction for sale of two of the vessels was sought for before any offer was received or could be received. Thereafter only one offer was received by Scindia that is of the writ petitioner. It is not possible to ascertain whether the offer of the writ petitioner is good or not in absence of any other offer. The writ petitioner as well as MSTC has submitted certain charts showing comparative sale price of vessels which are reproduced below:- Name of vessel LDT Month Value at which sold Price per LDT Paramount 5534 July 1983 85,79,888 1550.39 M.V. Golf 6430 August 1983 1,05,55,555 1614.61 Vessels sold by MSTC at Calcutta during 1.4.1983 to 31.3.1984. Name of vessel LDT Sold on Price obtained Price per LDT M.V. Adolf Waski 5591 21.7.1983 94,27,000.55 1686.10 CUSCO-K 4260 16.1.1984 77,77,000 1633.92 30. On the other hand the petitioner has furnished the following regarding vessels sold at Calcutta and Bombay with the approval of the MSTC. List of Vessels Sold at Calcutta & Bombay (Indian Flag Vessels Sold with the approval of MSTC) Name of Vessel Date of Sale Amount Sold LDT Average per LDT M.V. Deshbandhu 8.4.1983 86,52,000 8605 MT 1,005.46 Vishwa Kaushal 12.4.1983 40,00,000 4245 MT 942.28 Cosmos Merchant 30.4.1983 48,31,000 4536 MT 1,065.00 Jaladuta 30 4.1983 55,15,000 4860 MT 1,134.75 Jaladhruv 13.5.1983 40,00,000 5100 MT 784.31 Gold D Aden 24.5.1984 9,50,000 776 MT 1,224.00 Details of Vessels negotiated between M/s. Scindia Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. & Chaudhury Ship breaking Co. Name of Vessel Date of Sale Amount Sold LDT Average per LDT M.V. Jalagirija 27.4.1984 70,00,000 5263 MT 1,356.00 M.V. Jalatarang 27.4.1984 80,00,000 6318 MT 1,266.00 (Without bronze spare propeller) 31. Whether the price offered by the petitioner is fair or reasonable is to be decided by the Government before it approves the sale of the two vessels. But what is significant in this case is that Scindia never advertised the sale of the two ships for breaking purposes. If that was done then Scindia might have received the offer from registered ship breakers. P.L. Tikmany another writ petitioner has offered Rs. 85 lakhs for Jalatarang and Rs. 73 lakhs for Jalagirija as against Rs. 85 Lakhs and Rs. 72.5 Lakhs offered by S.S. Jain & Co. who subsequently went cut of the scene. If that was done then Scindia might have received the offer from registered ship breakers. P.L. Tikmany another writ petitioner has offered Rs. 85 lakhs for Jalatarang and Rs. 73 lakhs for Jalagirija as against Rs. 85 Lakhs and Rs. 72.5 Lakhs offered by S.S. Jain & Co. who subsequently went cut of the scene. In this background it will be just and proper that appropriate direction should be given so that all interested ship breakers can get opportunity to participate in the tender and a fair price is obtained by Scindia. It is no doubt true that Scindia is not an authority within the meaning of Article 12. But Scindia is a company where public are substantially interested and it can not and should not act against the interest of its shareholders who are members of the public. Since Scindia is a party before me, I direct Scindia to issue fresh advertisement giving the details of the ships as per model tender form mentioned in the said guidelines of MSTC referred to hereinabove and such advertisement should be issued at least once in Calcutta, once in Madras and once in Bombay so that all the ship breakers come to know about the sale of the two vessels for the purpose of scrapping. Scindia will not accept any offer below 85 lakhs for Jalatarang and Rs. 73 lakhs for Jalagirija. Scindia will accept the best obtainable price after such advertisements are issued and tenders are received in pursuance of such advertisements. The Director General of Shipping before granting permission under section 42(1) will consider whether the price obtained is fair or reasonable and grant approval in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible not later than three weeks from the date of receipt of the application for sanction to be made by Scindia. If approval is withheld or refused the Central Government must give reasons thereof, MSTC shall not be able to collect any service charges in accordance with the guidelines as I have held that MSTC is not a canalizing agent for the sale of the said two vessels. MSTC is therefore directed to refund the service charges deposited by the petitioner forthwith. 32. I make it quite clear that S.S. Jain & Co. will not be entitled to participate in the tender to be issued by Scindia afresh unless S.S. Jain & Co. offers at least Rs. MSTC is therefore directed to refund the service charges deposited by the petitioner forthwith. 32. I make it quite clear that S.S. Jain & Co. will not be entitled to participate in the tender to be issued by Scindia afresh unless S.S. Jain & Co. offers at least Rs. 85,00,000/- for purchase of M.V. Jalatarang and Rs. 72.5 lakhs for M.V. Jalagirija. They shall also pay the costs of this application to the writ petitioner assessed at 100 Gms. as it appears to me that their applications were not bonafide and they took recourse to the proceeding in this jurisdiction for ulterior reasons. P.L. Tikmany shall not quote below the price offered by them Rs. 85 lakhs and Rs. 73 lakhs for the said vessels. If no offer higher than what P.L. Tikmany has offered is received by Scindia, P.L. Tikmany undertakes to this Court to buy the said ships at the price offered by him subject to the sanction of the Director General of Shipping. 33. This order virtually disposes of the two writ applications filed by Ramniwas Chaudhury, two writ application filled by S.S. Jain & Co. and two writ applications filed by P.L. Tikmany. This also disposes of two applications filed by Jai Bharat Shipping Company for being added as party respondent. 34. Save as aforesaid there will be no order as to costs. Let a plain copy of this order countersigned by an officer of this Court be handed over to the learned advocates for the parties.