JUDGMENT - BATTA R.K., J.:---Petitioner No. 1 M/s. Maini Shipping (Pvt.) Limited, was owner of an Inland Vessel known as "M.V. Nitya Gita" which was sold by the said petitioner No. 1 by Sale Deed dated 13th January, 1989 to petitioner No. 2 M/s. I.K. Marine Charterers. After sale of the said vessel, petitioner No. 2 renamed the said vessel as "I.K. Annamaria". Petitioner No. 1 addressed a letter to the Secretary Industries, Government of Goa, Panaji, informing him that it had sold the barge 'M.V. Nitya Gita' renamed 'I.K. Annamaria' to petitioner No. 2 and that permission for transfer of ownership be granted. The petitioner also submitted an application for transfer of ownership to the Registering Authority along with the declaration for the purposes of effecting transfer in favour of petitioner No. 2. Thereafter the attention of the Registering Authority was drawn by Shri Ivan Khan, partner of petitioner No. 2 that Writ Petition No. 445/1988 has been disposed of by the Panaji Bench of the Bombay High Court and that all port dues payable in respect of the said vessel had been paid. The petitioners then wrote letter dated 13th April, 1992 to the Captain of Ports (respondent No. 1) enclosing Demand Draft for Rs. 3,784 towards port dues payable by the petitioner and requested that ownership of the vessel be transferred to petitioner No. 2. On 7th May, 1992, petitioners received a letter from the Registering Authority (respondent No. 2) informing them that they should comply with the requirements of Rule 9 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Inland Steam Vessels Registration Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the said Rules) and that permission of the State Government and/or Central Government should be obtained for transfer of the ownership of the vessel in terms of sub-section (1) of section 19-M of the Inland Vessel Act, 1917 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) and thereafter to apply for transfer. 2. The petitioners, feeling aggrieved by the said order of the Registering Authority, has approached this Court for directions to respondent No. 3 to grant permission to effect the transfer of ownership of the vessel "I.K. Annamaria" in favour of petitioner No. 2 and/or in the alternative further directions to respondent No. 2 to register the vessel in the name of petitioner No. 2. The petitioner also sought directions to take outside the State of Goa and for further directions to respondent No. 1 to give all necessary certificates within four days of the Order of the Court pending hearing and final disposal of this petition. Certain orders were passed from time to time in pursuance of the interim directions sought and the petitioners were permitted to take the vessel outside the State of Goa upon furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25 lakhs and getting the vessel insured in the sum of Rs. 25 lakhs and assigning the Policy in favour of the Additional Registrar of this Court. By this interim order further condition was imposed on the petitioners that they should give an undertaking to the Court, that the petitioners shall bring back the vessel in question without raising any objections whatsoever within one month from passing of the order to that effect. 3. The grounds on which the petitioners have based their challenge are two fold. Firstly, that the petitioner No. 1 was functioning in Goa at the time of transfer and petitioner No. 2 had business premises in Goa which facts were not taken into consideration by respondent No. 2 while returning the Form of Transfer of registration on account of which he had acted without jurisdiction. It appears that the stand of the petitioners is that permission was not required since both the petitioner had been functioning in Goa and, as such, permission was not required. The second ground is that even though the petitioners had sought permission from the Secretary Industries for transfer of the ownership of the vessel, respondent No. 3 had not taken any action in the matter. 4. Learned Advocate Shri Z.D'Souza, appearing on behalf of the petitioners, submitted before us that permission for the purpose of transfer of the vessel as required under section 19-M is a mere formality which cannot be withheld on any count except for dues, if any, against the vessel concerned and that even of the vessel is transferred without permission, the said Act does not provide for either cancellation or suspension of the registration of the vessel nor does it provide any penalties for not obtaining previous sanction. He further submitted before us that the petitioners had duly applied for permission which was neither granted nor refused by respondent No. 3 and, as such, the petitioners are entitled for directions sought in this petition. 5. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate Shri Bharne, pointed out that the sale or transfer of a vessel which is registered in Goa cannot be effected without obtaining prior permission of the Secretary, Industries and since no such permission was granted, the sale cannot be recognised nor the petitioners are entitled for transfer of registration as sought by them. In addition, it was pointed out by learned Government Advocate that petitioner No. 1 had three Inland vessel, out of which 'M.V. Nitya Kamal' had sunk in May, 1988 and the vessel in question has been sold by petitioner No. 1 to petitioner No. 2 on 13-1-1989 without obtaining necessary permission as required under section 19-M of the said Act. For the removal of the wreck of "M.V. Nitya Kamal" which had sunk, the respondent in terms of section 44-A had called for tenders for removal of the wreck and the tender was awarded to M/s. Madgaonkar Salvage Pvt. Ltd., Panaji, Goa. The said wreck of the vessel was removed on or about 1-12-96. The wreck was sold in auction to M/s. Madgaonkar Salvage Pvt. Ltd. since it was the highest bidder for a sum of Rs. 4,07,000/- and that a sum of Rs. 77,18,000/- is due from petitioner No. 1 in connection with the removal of the said wreck of the vessel 'M.V. Nitya Kamal'. For the said recovery the only property which is available of petitioner No. 1 is the third vessel 'I.K. Mallika', value of which is only around Rs. 25 lakhs and the value of the transferred vessel in dispute is also around Rs. 25 lakhs. In case the directions sought by the petitioners for registration of the vessel in favour of petitioner No. 2 are given, the respondents' claim against the said vessel shall be frustrated and the respondents shall not be able to recover the expenses incurred on salvage of the wreck of vessel 'M.V. Nitya Kamal' which expenses the petitioner No. 1 is bound to pay in accordance with law. 6. 6. Section 19-M of the said Act reads as under: "19-M. (1) An inland (mechanically propelled vessel) registered under this Act in one State shall not be transferred to a person resident in another State in India or in any country outside India, without the previous approval of the Government of the State in which the vessel is registered: Provided that where an inland (mechanically propelled vessel) is registered or deemed to be registered under the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958, this sub-section shall have effect as if for the words "the Government of the State in which the vessel is registered" the words "the Central Government" had been substituted. (2) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (1), the owner of an inland (mechanically propelled vessel) registered under this Act and the transferee thereof shall, within thirty days of the transfer of ownership of the said vessel to the transferee, jointly make a report of the transfer to the registering authority within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the transferee resides or carries on business and shall also forward the certificate of registration to that registering authority, together with the prescribed fee, in order that particulars of the transfer of ownership may be entered thereon." Likewise Rule 9 of the said Rules specifically provide and reads as follows: "Transfer of ownership of a registered vessel. (1) The owner of a vessel, registered under the Act in the Union Territory of Goa, Daman and Diu, or his authorised agent shall obtain the previous approval of the Government or the Central Government as the case may be, under sub-section (1) of section 19-M of the Act for any transfer of ownership of his vessel or any share or interest therein to a person resident in another State in India or in any country outside India. The application for permission for such transfer shall be submitted through the Registering Authority of the place where the vessel is registered to the Government concerned and shall be accompanied by a treasury challan showing that the prescribed fee has been deposited. The application for permission for such transfer shall be submitted through the Registering Authority of the place where the vessel is registered to the Government concerned and shall be accompanied by a treasury challan showing that the prescribed fee has been deposited. After obtaining the sanction of the appropriate Government such transfer of ownership shall be executed in Form IX (Deed of Sale) obtainable from the office of the Registering Authority on payment of a sum of one rupee per copy." Section 19-M of the said Act and Rule 9 of the said Rules specifically provide for previous approval, of the Government of the State in which the vessel is registered, of the purpose of transfer of a vessel to a person residing in another State in India or in any country outside India. Rule 9 further provides that the application for such transfer shall be submitted through the Registering Authority of the place where the vessel is registered to the Government concerned and shall be accompanied by a treasury challan showing that the prescribed fee has been deposited. It is after obtaining the sanction of the appropriate Government that transfer of ownership shall be executed in Form IX (Deed of Sale) obtainable from the office of the Registering Authority on payment of a sum of one rupee per copy. Section 19-M(2) further provides that subject to the provisions of sub-section (1) the owner of an inland mechanically propelled vessel registered under the act and the transferee thereof, shall, within thirty days of the transfer of ownership of the said vessel to the transferee, jointly make a report of the transfer to the registering authority within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the transferee resides or carries on business and shall also forward the certificate of registration to that registering authority, together with the prescribed fee, in order that particulars of the transfer of ownership may be entered thereon. 7. Thus, it is clear from the said provisions that when an inland mechanically propelled vessel registered under the Act in one State is to be transferred to a person resident in another State in India or in any country outside India, previous approval of the Government of the State is required for the transfer of such vessel. 7. Thus, it is clear from the said provisions that when an inland mechanically propelled vessel registered under the Act in one State is to be transferred to a person resident in another State in India or in any country outside India, previous approval of the Government of the State is required for the transfer of such vessel. In other words, if the transfer is to be effected within the State itself to a person who is residing within the State itself for carrying on business within the State itself, no such permission may be required. The first ground which has been taken by the petitioners is that petitioner No. 1 used to ply barges between inland waters of the State of Goa and petitioner No. 2 is having its office at Bombay and Vasco-da-Gama. As such, petitioner No. 1 was functioning at the time of transfer in Goa and petitioner No. 2 had business premises in Goa. In other words, probably what the petitioners wished to urge in this ground is that since the transfer was being effected by the parties who had business in Goa, no such permission was required and as such, respondent No. 2 did not consider the said aspects while returning the Form of Transfer of registration and therefore acted without jurisdiction. The cat is out of the bag, if we see Ex. C which is on record at page 17 of this petition, wherein declaration has been given by transferee Ivan Khan that he is residing permanently at/having place of business at Bombay. Therefore, permission from the Government was absolutely essential and the contention of the petitioners that the registering authority acted without jurisdiction is without any merit whatsoever. Presumably, knowing fully well that this is the position, petitioner No. 1 had, in fact, applied for permission from the State Government. Letter seeking permission is Exh. B at page 15 of the record. We would like to point out that none of Exhs. B, C and D which have been placed on record by the petitioners bear any dates and even para 3 of Exh. C at page 17, the column relating to Government order of sanction is blank. It is not known when the application for transfer of ownership (Exh. C) was filed. B, C and D which have been placed on record by the petitioners bear any dates and even para 3 of Exh. C at page 17, the column relating to Government order of sanction is blank. It is not known when the application for transfer of ownership (Exh. C) was filed. Be that as it may, for purpose of transfer of an inland mechanically propelled vessel registered in one State which is required to be transferred to a resident in another State in India or in any country outside India, previous approval of the State Government is required and section 19-M is mandatory since it prohibits transfer and the expression used therein is “shall not transfer” without previous approval of the State Government. What the petitioners have done is to put the cart before the horse. Sale was effected first without obtaining prior approval of the State Government. There is distinct purpose behind section 19-M of the said Act which is sought to be achieved and we cannot agree with the submission of learned Advocate Shri D' Souza that permission for transfer is a mere formality. His contention that no penalties are provided in case such permission is not obtained is also without any merit since section 63-D provides that if any person contravenes any of the provisions of this Act for which no other penalty is provided in this Act, he shall be punishable with fine which may extend to two hundred rupees. Therefore, if a person does not obtain prior permission for transfer as required under section 19-M he violates the said provision for which there is penalty provided under section 63-D of the said Act. Nevertheless, it would not mean that by payment of penalty, the provision of previous approval shall stand waived. Prior approval is mandatory for the transfer of inland mechanically propelled vessel in cases covered under section 19-M of the Act. Nevertheless, it would not mean that by payment of penalty, the provision of previous approval shall stand waived. Prior approval is mandatory for the transfer of inland mechanically propelled vessel in cases covered under section 19-M of the Act. Though, it is not specifically pointed out by the State, but it appears that the ulterior objective of effecting the sale without approval of the State was to transfer this vessel belonging to the petitioner No. 1 so that the same would be free from any attachment which may be necessary for the purpose of recovery of expenses for the salvage of the inland vessel 'M.V Nitya Kamal' belonging to the petitioners which had sunk and in respect of which there are huge dues to be recovered from petitioner No. 1. In spite of ten notices issued to petitioner No. 1 referred to in Exh.R-1 at page 41 of the record, the petitioner No. 1 did not remove the same and instead sold one of its vessels which is subject-matter of this petition. 8. Besides this, when the registering authority had returned the documents filed by the petitioners for the purpose of registration after drawing the attention of the petitioners to Rule 9 of the said Rules, it was necessary for the petitioners to have pursued their application for permission to transfer filed with the Secretary of Industries, Government of Goa, Panaji, which was never prosecuted nor followed up by the petitioners. The petitioners have to blame themselves for the same and instead without pursuing the same, they rushed to the Court for directions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 9. Learned Advocate Shri D'Souza, relying on a Division Bench ruling of this Court in (M/s. Mandovi Ore Carrier v. Captain of Ports and others)1, Writ Petition No. 248/94 urged before us that the registration be ordered on conditions deemed fit. In that case not only the facts were entirely different, but therein the petitioner had not only pursued the application for registration, but had filed an appeal also before the Secretary, Government of Goa. However, the position is different in the case under consideration. In these circumstances, we do not find that this is a fit case where directions ought by the petitioners should be issued. We, therefore, dismiss this petitioner with costs. Rule is discharged in the aforesaid terms. 10. However, the position is different in the case under consideration. In these circumstances, we do not find that this is a fit case where directions ought by the petitioners should be issued. We, therefore, dismiss this petitioner with costs. Rule is discharged in the aforesaid terms. 10. We are informed that the vessel in question is at Porbandar. In view of the undertaking given by the petitioners to this Court, we direct the petitioners to bring the vessel to Panaji within a period of one month from today and report the arrival of the vessel at Panaji to the respondents. A compliance report shall be filed by the petitioners within one week of the expiry of the said period of one month. The matter shall be put up on Board upon filing of the said compliance report or within the period specified above, whichever is earlier. Petition dismissed. -----