BALAKRISHNA, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner has invoked a writ of certiorari for quashing the decision/direction of respondent-2 contained in communication dated 21-2-1983 under annexure-a, Annexure-A being a direction to the petitioner which reads as follows : "you are once again informed that you are illegally storing class b petroleum in the above vessel and dispensing the same to the fishing boat through diesel-operated pumps, as you do not hold a proper licence issued under the petroleum rules, 1976. This was made clear to your representative who called at thii office on 189-82. You should therefore desist from the using the floating vessel for dispensing hsd to the fishing boats. if you want to store hsd for this purpose you may install proper storage tank (s) near the place connected dispensing pump (s) and take out a licence in the appropriate form under petroleum rules, 1976 for which purpose you may send your proposal for approval initially along with Rs. 10-00 (in form of demand draft) in favour of dy. Chief controller of explosives, south circle, Madras towards scrutiny fee. please acknowledge the receipt of this letter and report compliance immediately. " ( 2 ) THE grievance of the petitioner isthat the said order is not warranted by law and that the department of explosives has no jurisdiction whatsoever in regard to the barge belonging to the petitioner and that the proper authority having the necessary jurisdiction is only the mercantile marine department. ( 3 ) IT is also the case of the petitioner that the directions to respondent-3 not to supply hsd to the petitioner is illegal and without jurisdiction. Lastly it is contended that the impugned order of respondent-2 infringes the fundamental right of the petitioner. ( 4 ) THE petitioner is carrying on the business of transporting petroleum class-b (hsd) in his vessel and dispensing the same to the fishing boats on the see. The dispensation is carried out through diesel operated pumps. The petitioner has the necessary licence issued under Rule 33 under article 1 of the first schedule in from-lll for carriage of petroleum in bulk by water. The dispensation is carried out through diesel operated pumps. The petitioner has the necessary licence issued under Rule 33 under article 1 of the first schedule in from-lll for carriage of petroleum in bulk by water. A copy of the licence issued to the petitioner is to be found in annexure b. In the licence it is provided that the vessel mentioned in the licence is authorised for the carriage of petroleum in bulk by water under Rule 33 of the petroleum rules, 1976 subject to the provision of the petroleum Act, 1934 and the rules made thereunder. The licence is liable to be cancelled only if the licensed vessel if inspected is not in conforming to the descriptions and conditions attached thereto and contravention of any rules and conditions under which the licence is granted and is also punishable for the first offence with simple imprisonment which may extend to one month or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees or with both aud for every such subsequent offene with simple imprisonment which may extend to three months or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees or with both. The licence is issued subject to the conditions which are incorporated in it and the same read as follows :-"the petroleum shall be stored only in (1) the following parts of the vessel: between frame spaces 15 and 32 divided into 4 compartments by one longinudinal and one transverse bulkhead and bounded fore and aft by cofferdams extending over one frame space. (2) the following manner, that is to say bulk and/or packed. " ( 5 ) THE impugned Order, according to the petitioner, frustrates the licence itself inasmuch as it compels the petitioner to obtain licence in form xii or in special form in addition to the licence obtained in form iii. The contention of the petitioner is that it is unnecessary for the purpose of the nature of business and the activity that he is carrying on to obtain a licence, in form xii or in a special form as insisted upon by respondent-2. According to the petitioner. Form xii applies only to such persons who import and propose to store petroleum on the sea-shore or on land, but it is inapplicable to a vessel on the sea which carries or transports petroleum for the purpose of dispensation to the fishing boats. According to the petitioner. Form xii applies only to such persons who import and propose to store petroleum on the sea-shore or on land, but it is inapplicable to a vessel on the sea which carries or transports petroleum for the purpose of dispensation to the fishing boats. According to the petitioner, what is required is only a licence in form iii under Rule 33 and it is unnecessary to obtain one more licence under form xii or in a special form. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the question of obtaining a licence in form xii or in a special form arises only if the petitioner is intended to import and store the oil and not otherwise. At the same time, it is submitted that the petitioner is neither importing nor storing and therefore it is not necessary to obtain such a licence. On the other hand, the licence which the petitioner has already obtained in form 111 meets the purpose of law and therefore the impugned order is without the authority of law. ( 6 ) THE learned counsel appearingfor respondents-! And 2 submitted that dispensation of petroleum is not covered by licence obtained in form 111 and it is only meant for the purpose of carriage of petroleum in bulk by water. According to him if the petitioner wants to carry on his trade, he must necessarily obtain a licence in form xii or a licence in special form by which he will be authorised not only to transport by water petroleum in bulk in his vessel but also dispense the same to the fishing boats. Another contention advanced by him is that the same activity which the petitioner is carrying on would be done even if he obtains one licence either in form xii or in a special form but certainly not under a licence in form iii. Another contention advanced by him is that the same activity which the petitioner is carrying on would be done even if he obtains one licence either in form xii or in a special form but certainly not under a licence in form iii. ( 7 ) RULE 33 of the petroleum rules,1976 provides as follows : conditions of carriage of petroleum in bulk by water: (1) petroleum in bulk shall not be carried by water except in a ship or other vessel licensed for the carriage of petroleum in bulk by an officer appointed by the central government in this behalf (hereinafter in this part referred to as the licensing authority) and the petroleum shall be stored in such part of the ship or other vessel and in such manner as may be approved by general or special order by the licensing authority after consultation with the chief controller: provided that: (a) nothing in this Rule shall apply to ships importing petroleum ; (b) petroleum in tank vehicles may, with the permission, in writing, of the chief controller and subject to such conditions as he may specify, be transported across a river by a ferry. (2) the licence referred to in sub- Rule (1) shall be granted in form iii and shall remain in force for a period of one bear from the date of its issue. " ( 8 ) THUS, it could be seen that theprovision of Rule 33 (1) does not apply to ships importing petroleum and also petroleum in tank vehicles except with the permission in writing of the chief controller subject to such conditions as he may specify be transported across a river by a ferry. This licence is intended to authorise carriage of petroleum in bulk either in a ship or other vessel licensed for the carriage of petroleum in bulk by the competent authority. There can be no two opinion about the fact that what the petitioner is doing is the activity of carrying petroleum in bulk by water in a vessel belonging to him. Petroleum so carried is not for just the heck of carrying the oil across the sea without purpose- the ultimate purpose is to supply the oil carried to the fishing boats and that is the main and intended activity of the petitioner. Petroleum so carried is not for just the heck of carrying the oil across the sea without purpose- the ultimate purpose is to supply the oil carried to the fishing boats and that is the main and intended activity of the petitioner. for the purpose of maintaining supply across the sea to the fishing boats, it goes without saying that the petitioner has to carry the petroleum in the storage tank contained in the vessel, but in accordance with the specifications mentioned in the licence. Transport of petroleum in the vessel cannot be done without carrying the petroleum in the storage tank though for a transient purpose. In short, it is an integrated activity. Carrying petroleum in the storage tank in the vessel, transporting it across the sea and dispensing it to the fishing boats are the integrated activities of the petitioner. Without one activity, the rest cannot be completed. What the authority is now compelling the petitioner to do is to obtain a licence in form xii or in a special form. Licence in form xii is granted for the purpose of storing petroleum in a tank or tanks not in the vessel or ship on the sea but on land. Whereas this licence is to be issued by the chief controller or a controller of explosives authorised in this behalf by the chief controller, licence in form ml is granted by an officer appointed by the central government. It is further seen that in the conditions as well as the licence recital in form xii what is specified and provided for is a licence granted only for the,storage of certain class of petroleum in the licensed premises in a tank or tanks which are mentioned in the description of the licensed premises. Admittedly and undisputedly the petitioner is not engaged in the business of importing and storing petroleum at all. It is the refore necessary to find out whether it is incumbent upon the petitioner to obtain a licence in forrn xll besides a licence in form iii. It stands to reason and common sense that a person owning a vessel has the option either to engage in the business of transporting petroleum in his vessel in bulk and in dispensing it to the fishing boats or import petroleum and store it in a licensed premises on land near the seashore or to have both. It stands to reason and common sense that a person owning a vessel has the option either to engage in the business of transporting petroleum in his vessel in bulk and in dispensing it to the fishing boats or import petroleum and store it in a licensed premises on land near the seashore or to have both. In the instant case, the petitioner has opted for only transport of petroleum in bulk across the sea for the purpose of dispensation to the fishing boats. In issuing the impugned direction to the petitioner what the authority has done is an action which is almost coerceive in nature compelling the petitioner to import and store the petroleum in a licensed premises by obtaining a licence is form xll which the petitioner does not desire at all. In other words, for the purpose of transportation of petroleum in the vessel belonging to the petitioner and for dispensation of the same to the fishing boats by pumping out through diesel pumps, it is not necessary under the act or the rules to obtain another licence in form xii or in a special form. Nowhere in the act or in the rules is it provided that obtaining a licence in form xii or in a special form is a cordition precedent to have the benefit of licence obtained in form iii under Rule 33 of the rules. The impression that is created in my mind is that there is some kind of a confusion which must have caused the authority to issue the impugned order to the petitioner. in my opinion, the impugned direction is not warranted by law and the power exercised by the authority in this behalf is without jurisdiction. ( 9 ) ACCORDING to the learned counselappearing for respondent-3, the licence in form xii is not applicable to a floating vessel transporting bulk petroleum, but it applies only to oil stored on land falling within the jurisdiction of chief controller or controller of explosives authorised in this behalf by the chief controller and the Provisions of the explosives act or rules are inapplicable to floating vessels. This contention commends acceptance by virtue of what is contained in the first schedule of the petroleum rules, 1976 in si-no. This contention commends acceptance by virtue of what is contained in the first schedule of the petroleum rules, 1976 in si-no. 5 wherein it is provided that licence in form xii is intended for the purpose of storing petroleum in tank or tanks in licensed premises only. ( 10 ) LOOKING from any angle, i donot see any justification for the impugned order. The learned counsel appearing for respondents-1 and 2 submitted that petroleum is highly inflamable and from the point of view of security it is intended that even persons who carry petroleum in floating vessels and store petroleum in storage tanks in the vessels are expected to obtain a licence in form xii and the intended purpose is only to minimise the evil. I am afraid that though the stated intention is salutary in spitit, it is not borne by the letter of law and it cannot be accepted. We are only concerned with the question whether or not the petitioner is legally bound to obtain a licence in form xii or in any other special form besides a licence in form 111. ( 11 ) FOR the reasons stated above,the writ petition has to succeed and is therefore allowed and the impugned order under Annexure-A is quashed. --- *** --- .