S. CHATTERJI, J. ( 1 ) -THE present writ petition has been filed by Hinterland Seamen Union against Union of India and the Director General of Shipping, Bombay besides the Secretary (Shipping and Transport), Andaman and Nicobar Administration, Director of Shipping Services, Port Blair and the Surveyor in-charge, Mercantile Marine Department, Port Blair. The petitioner has prayed inter alia : (A)injunction restraining the respondents, their subordinates agents and/or each of them from giving effect and/or further effect to the impugned order of punishment for forfeiture of wages of those seamen dated 31st March, 1992 passed by the Shipping Master, Port Blair pursuant to the suo moto purported enquiry conducted by him ; (b)injunction restraining the Director of Shipping Services, Port Blair acting as Shipping Master pursuant to the order vide no. A-36019/1/89-MA dated 18th December, 1989, issued by the Under Secretary, Surface Transport (Shipping Wing), Government of India from acting as Shipping Master at Port Blair till the disposal of the writ application. ( 2 ) IT is stated in detail that the petitioner Union exists for bargaining and ensuring the betterment of the service conditions of the Seamen and serving their interest. The petitioner has mainly challenged the order No. A-36019/1/89-MA dated 18th December, 1989 issued by the Under Secretary, Surface Transport, Shipping Wing, Government of India besides other consequential reliefs on the ground that the respondent authorities have acted mala fide in appointing the Director of Shipping Services, Port Blair as the Shipping Master by the aforesaid Notification dated 18th December, 1989. It is contended that the said Director of Shipping Services is one of the owners of the ships. But without following the provisions of the statute he has been appointed as the Shipping Master at Port Blair by the impugned Notification and such Notification is not in accordance with law. The grievance of the petitioner is that any Officer of the Shipping Services cannot be appointed as the Shipping Master as the statute provides that the dispute between the owner and any of the crew will be heard and decided by the Shipping Master. But in the instant case the Central Government has acted mala fide in appointing the Director of Shipping Services as the Shipping Master and such appointment of the said Director of Shipping Services is bad in law. But in the instant case the Central Government has acted mala fide in appointing the Director of Shipping Services as the Shipping Master and such appointment of the said Director of Shipping Services is bad in law. The petitioner has placed on record that the Director of Shipping Services had earlier tried to frustrate the issue of permanency of the crew members and/or he was involved in the case of victimisation of 47 crew members during the period of strike and both the matters were challenged by the petitioner-union and the matters are pending before the Division Bench of this Court. While the writ petition was entertained by directing to file affidavits, there is no interim order although prayed by the petitioner by a subsequent petition also. ( 3 ) THE writ petition is opposed by the respondents by filing an affidavit in opposition sworn to, the Secretary (Shipping and Transport), Andaman and Nicobar Administration. It is placed on record that the Director of Shipping Services is an employee and no particular individual and/or Government Officer is owner of any ship or ships. The Government itself is the owner and all the Officers attached to the Shipping and Transport Department are Government employees. The Director of Shipping Services is also an Officer of the Andaman and Nicobar Administration. The Government of India, Ministry of Surface Transport, has conferred powers of Shipping Master to the Director of Shipping Services vide Notification No. GSR-1056 (E) dated 19. 12. 1989 in exercise of the powers under section 11 of the Merchant Shipping Act. The management of inter-island vessels belonging to the Government has been entrusted to Shipping Corporation of India and the Officers and crew for managing the vessels are being employed by the Shipping Corporation of India. The Director of Shipping Services is neither the owner nor the agent in respect of those vessels. All other allegations in the writ petition has been denied. ( 4 ) MR. J. C. Ghosh appearing for the writ petitioner has argued raising two pots. First he argued that the impugned Notification has been made under section 11 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958. All other allegations in the writ petition has been denied. ( 4 ) MR. J. C. Ghosh appearing for the writ petitioner has argued raising two pots. First he argued that the impugned Notification has been made under section 11 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958. It is provided under section 11 (3) of the said Act that the Central Government may direct that at any port at which no separate shipping office is established, the whole or any part of the business of the shipping office shall be conducted at the custom house or at the office of the port officer or at such other office as the Central Government may specify, and thereupon the same shall be conducted accordingly. Mr. Ghosh has emphasised that the business of the shipping office may be conducted at the Custom House or at the Office of the Port Officer and in view of the principle of ejusdem generis, such other office must be construed as a port of the aforesaid two specified offices and not at the office of the Director of Shipping Services as referred in the impugned Notification. In support of his contention he has relied upon a decision reported in AIR 1979 Supreme Court page 65 (The U. P. State Electricity Board and Another v. Hari Shankar Join and Others ). He has drawn the attention of this Court to paragraph 14 of the said decision as to the expression that "any other rules or regulation" should be read ejusdem generis, with the expressions "fundamental and Supplementary Rules, Civil Services, Control, Classification and Appeal Rules" etc. ( 5 ) SECONDLY, Mr. Ghosh has argued that the Director of Shipping Services cannot be appointed as the Shipping Master. Section 89 of the Merchant Shipping Act, runs as follows : -"89. ( 5 ) SECONDLY, Mr. Ghosh has argued that the Director of Shipping Services cannot be appointed as the Shipping Master. Section 89 of the Merchant Shipping Act, runs as follows : -"89. It shall be the duty of shipping masters- (a)to superintend and facilitate the engagement and discharge of seamen in the manner provided in this Act; (b)to provide means for securing the presence on board at the proper times of the seamen who are so engaged; (c)to facilitate the making of apprenticeship to the sea service ; (d)to hear and decide disputes under section 132 between a master, owner or agent of a ship and any of the crew of the ship ; (e)to perform such other duties relating to seamen, apprentices and merchant ships as are for the time being committed to them by or under this Act. ( 6 ) MR. Ghosh has drawn the attention of this Court to section 132 of the said Act where it is provided that under the agreement with the crew any dispute arises at any port in India between the master, owner or agent of a ship and any of the crew of the ship, it shall be submitted to the Shipping Master, - (A)where the amount in dispute does not exceed three thousand rupees, at the instance of either party to the dispute ; (b)in any other case, if both parties to the dispute agree in writing to submit the report to the shipping master. ( 7 ) SECTION 132 (2) envisages that the Shipping Master shall hear and decide the dispute so submitted and an award made by him upon the submission shall be conclusive as to the rights of the parties, and any document purporting to be such submission or award shall be prima facie evidence thereof. Section 132 (2) envisages that an award made by a shipping master under this section may be enforced by a Judicial Magistrate of the First Class or a Metropolitan Magistrate, as the case may be, in the same manner as an order for the payment of wages made by such Magistrate under this Act. Section 132 (4) provides that nothing in the Arbitration Act, 1940, shall apply to any matter submitted to a shipping master for decision under this section. ( 8 ) MR. Section 132 (4) provides that nothing in the Arbitration Act, 1940, shall apply to any matter submitted to a shipping master for decision under this section. ( 8 ) MR. Ghosh has developed his argument submitting inter alia that a Shipping Master must be independent, impartial and an authority without having any bias. The decision of the Shipping Master is conclusive. The Director of Shipping Services cannot discharge the function of a Shipping Master. He cannot decide a dispute between the Master and/or agent of a vessel on one side and the crewmembers on the other side. It is, as if, that a person will become a judge of his own cause. It is like an approach to decide a case from a search to seizure. In support of his contention he has drawn the attention of this court to a decision reported in AIR 1959 Supreme Court page 1376 (Gullappalli Nageswararao and Others v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others ). The principles of natural justice, bias, and Judge in his own cause and the principles thereof have been discussed. The attention of the Court has been drawn particularly to paragraph No. 6 of the said decision where the principles governing the "doctrine of bias" vis-a-vis judicial tribunals have been discussed. These are well settled such as- (i) no man shall be a judge in his own cause ; (ii) justice should not only be done but manifestly and undoubtedly seem to be done. The two maxims yield the result that if a member of a judicial body is subject to a bias in favour of or against any party to a dispute or is in such a position that a bias must be assumed to exist, he ought not to take part in the decision on sit on the tribunal; and that any direct pecuniary interest, however small, in the subject-matter of inquiry will disqualify a judge. According to Mr. Ghosh, the Director of Shipping Services cannot function without any bias and there are past experiences. He has canvassed the grievances of the petitioner with much force and he has drawn the inspiration from another decision reported in AIR 1965 Supreme Court page 1303 (The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Hyderabad and Another v. Shri Satyanarayana Transports (Private) Ltd. , Guntur and Others ). He has canvassed the grievances of the petitioner with much force and he has drawn the inspiration from another decision reported in AIR 1965 Supreme Court page 1303 (The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Hyderabad and Another v. Shri Satyanarayana Transports (Private) Ltd. , Guntur and Others ). The scope of natural justice and the principles as to personal bias and the function of quasi-judicial officer or tribunal and as to their disqualification on ground of personal bias were considered. ( 9 ) MR. Shiv Saroop has argued the case on behalf of the respondent Administration. He has placed all the relevant records to show that the present Director of Shipping Services is functioning the duties of a Harbour Master. The duties of Harbour Master are as follows :- (1)over all charges of the Shipping Department, Marine Department and Motor Transport and the Customs Organisations. (2) management-operation of the Mainland-islands-Govt ships, M. V. Andamans, M. V. Nicobar and the Shipping Corporation's ships TSS State of Bombay and M. V. Shompan and any vessels acquired or chattered or arranged by Government for mainland-island service. (3)piloting, berthing, mooring-unmooring or all ships and allotment of berths to ships, etc. (4)processing all matters relating to acquisition/chartering of ships. (5)all functions of a Shipping Master, who is incharge of "shipping Office", Port Blair (declared under the Merchant Shipping Act, 1953 ). (6) functioning of the Conservator of Port for the Port of Port Blair. (7)entire Motor Transport Organisation. (8)customs Officer for the port of Port Blair. (9)any other functions as may be assigned by the Chief Commissioner. ( 10 ) ACCORDING to him the Harbour Masters and not the Director of Shipping Services are the employees. Their functions are independent and there is no bias and the challenges made by the petitioner are misconceived and without any merit. ( 11 ) PATIENTLY and diligently this Court has considered the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties. The grievance of the petitioner is bias as to the functions of the Director of Shipping Services to act as the Shipping Master in terms of the impugned Notification. The other point is as to the irregularity and illegality of the impugned Notification so far as place of the office of the Shipping Master. The grievance of the petitioner is bias as to the functions of the Director of Shipping Services to act as the Shipping Master in terms of the impugned Notification. The other point is as to the irregularity and illegality of the impugned Notification so far as place of the office of the Shipping Master. Section 11 of the Merchant Shipping Act is very clear that the Central Government may, by Notification in the official Gazette, establish a shipping office at every port in India in which it thinks it necessary so to do, and shall appoint thereto a shipping master and as many deputy shipping masters and assistant shipping masters as it may consider necessary. Section 11 (2) envisages that Shipping Masters, Deputy Shipping Masters and Assistant Shipping Masters shall exercise their powers and discharge their duties subject to the general control of the Central Government or of any intermediate authority which the Central Government may specify in this behalf. In this context and in this background section 11 (3) runs that the Central Government may direct that at any port at which no separate Shipping Office is established, the whole or any part of the business of the Shipping Office shall be conducted at the Custom House or at the Office of the Port Officer or at such other office as the Central Government may specify and thereupon the same shall be conducted accordingly. "such other office" as expressed in section 11 (3) of the Merchant Shipping Act does not provide that such an office has to be established either at the office of the Port Officer or at the Custom House or at any part of those two offices by following the principles of ejusdem generis. Besides, in the instant case the Director of Shipping Services has to function the duties of a Harbour Master as indicated above and he has to function the customs duty and there is no bar and/or impediment for the Director of Shipping Services to hold the office of the Shipping Master at his office at the port in question. Regard being had to the materials on record and in view of the legal position it is found that the Director of Shipping Services may have dual capacity. Regard being had to the materials on record and in view of the legal position it is found that the Director of Shipping Services may have dual capacity. He can discharge the function of a quasi-judicial authority as per the duties of the Harbour Master as envisaged under section 89 of the Merchant Shipping Act. The Director of Shipping Services is certainly not the owner or the agent of the vessel. By holding the office he cannot have any bias as apprehended by the petitioner. The Director of Shipping Services is certainly not becoming a judge in his own cause not the ratio of the reported decisions as cited on behalf of the petitioner is attracted in respect of the facts and circumstances of the present case. If there is any specific allegation as to bias against any individual and/or authority concerned, the petitioner can make out an appropriate case, but this court does not find that there is any merit in the contention that the impugned Notification suffers from any irregularity and/or illegality. The acts done and/or caused to have been done by the Director of Shipping Services in terms of the impugned Notification are not bad in law. The petitioner is not entitled to all the relies in this case. For the foregoing reasons the writ petition fails with this observation that this judgment will not prevent the petitioners to make a fresh representation to the Shipping Master as to the alleged illegal deduction only and the same should be considered within six weeks from the date of filing and the same would be considered by giving a chance of hearing according to law and by passing a speaking order. Let a plain copy of this order be given to both the parties upon usual undertaking that they will apply for certified copy of the judgment and leave is also granted to the petitioner to seek all statutory remedies in accordance with law. Petition failed.