JUDGMENT - F.I. REBELLO, J.:---Rule. 2.Respondents have been served. In view of Order dated 29th February, 2000, heard forthwith. 3.Petitioner No. 1 is a Trade Union representing Seamen referred to as ratings and, inter alia, responsible for the protection and welfare of ratings, petty officers, etc. Petitioner No. 2 is an Office bearer of petitioner No. 1. The petitioner No. 3 is another trade union of Merchant Navy Officers and petitioner No. 4 is the General Secretary of petitioner No. 3. It is the case of the petitioners that on 7th January, 2000 the 1st respondents has taken a view that vessel MV Swaraj Dweep operating between Mainland/Andaman and Nicobar Island service on Coasting Trade would be treated as a coasting ship and as such there is no requirement of the Officers and Crew signing articles as required in respect of a Foreign Going Indian Ship. The petitioner No. 1 aggrieved by the said decision represented to the 1st respondent by letter dated 20th January, 2000. By a reply addressed to the 2nd petitioner dated 21st January, 2000 the 1st respondent set out that apart from Foreign Going and Home-Trade vessels there are other residual category of ships such as a vessel involved in the present petition which do not fall under section 76(1)(b) and (c) but fall under section 76(1)(a). In these circumstances Vessel MV Swaraj Dweep was not a Foreign Going Vessel. Petitioners have also specifically averred that vessel MV Swaraj Dweep had gross tonnage 14329 and registered tonnage 4741. Apart from that in paragraph 2(e) the petitioners have specifically averred that various other vessels named therein are similarly situated like the vessel MV Swaraj Dweep, in all respects. On those ships the Articles signed are as a foreign going vessel. The said ships like Gem of Paradip, Gem of Madras, Tamil Periyar, Tamil Anna, etc. were in excess of 3000 tons gross and though exclusively engaged in Coastal trading the articles signed are as Foreign Going Articles. In these circumstances, the petitioners have prayed that the communication as contained in letter dated 7th January, 2000 at Exhibit "B" as well as letter dated 21st January, 2000 Exhibit "D" be quashed and set aside. On behalf of the respondents Shri K.S. Varadarajan, Executive Officer, Directorate General of Shipping has filed an affidavit. In these circumstances, the petitioners have prayed that the communication as contained in letter dated 7th January, 2000 at Exhibit "B" as well as letter dated 21st January, 2000 Exhibit "D" be quashed and set aside. On behalf of the respondents Shri K.S. Varadarajan, Executive Officer, Directorate General of Shipping has filed an affidavit. More specifically dealing with the contentions of the petitioners, it is reiterated that the vessel is used only for coastal trade between Andaman-Nicobar Islands and Mainland of India and as it was engaged in Coasting trade could not be said to be a Foreign going ship. It is also pointed out that apart from Foreign going Vessel and Home-Trade Ship, there is also a category known as Coasting Ship. It is also pointed out that there is no relevance between foreign going vessels and signing of articles as a Foreign Going Ship. However, in so far as paragraph 2(e) is concerned, there is no specific denial that the vessels referred to therein have not entered into foreign going articles as contemplated for a foreign going vessels. It is pointed out that that was purely the decision of the owners who were at liberty to sign the articles. It is therefore, contended that the decision of the 1st respondent cannot be faulted. 4.I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and the respondents who have taken me through the various provisions of the Act. It is principally contended on behalf of the petitioners that the vessel MV Swaraj Dweep considering the provisions of the Act is a foreign going ship and consequently is bound to comply with the requirement of section 76, section 101 and section 103 and the other relevant provisions. On the other hand on behalf of the respondents, their learned Counsel contends that MV Swaraj Dweep is a Coasting ship and therefore neither a foreign going ship or a home-trade ship. What therefore would apply would be section 101(1) and section 103(1). In these circumstances, it is contended that the decision of the respondent No. 1 cannot be faulted. It is also contended that looking at the provisions of section 3(13) the vessel cannot be said to be a foreign going ship as it is not employed in trading between any port or place in India and ports or places outside India. In these circumstances, it is contended that the decision of the respondent No. 1 cannot be faulted. It is also contended that looking at the provisions of section 3(13) the vessel cannot be said to be a foreign going ship as it is not employed in trading between any port or place in India and ports or places outside India. For the purpose of deciding the issue that has arisen, namely whether MV Swaraj Dweep is a foreign going ship and as such whether provisions of sections 76, 101 and 103(2) as well as 76(1) are applicable or whether it is a coasting ship, it will be necessary to refer to some of the definition clauses. The Merchant Shipping Act, 1958 hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', by virtue of section 3(13) has defined 'foreign-going ship', as meaning a ship not being a home-trade ship employed in trading between any port or place in India and any other port or place or between ports or places, outside India. Section 3(16) defines 'home-trade ship' to mean a ship not exceeding three thousand tons gross which is employed in trading between any port or place in India and any other port or place on the continent of India or between ports or places in India and ports or places in Ceylon, Maladive Islands, Federation of Malaya, Singapore or Burma. Section 3(2) defines 'coasting trade of India', as meaning carriage by sea of passengers or goods from any port or place in India to any other port or place on the continent of India. Under section 76(1) every Indian ship, other than a home-trade ship of less than two hundred tons gross engaged in coasting trade of India, when going to sea from any port or place, shall be provided with officers duly certified under the Act, namely, a duly certified master. Under section 76(1)(b) if the ship is a foreign-going ship than apart from the duly certified master, there ought to be an officer holding a certificate not lower than that of (i) first mate; (ii) second mate; and (iii) navigational watchkeeping officer. In the case of home-trading ship apart from Certified Master by virtue of section 76(1)(c), with an Officer who must hold a certificate not lower than that of (i) a mate and (ii) a navigational watchkeeping officer. In the case of home-trading ship apart from Certified Master by virtue of section 76(1)(c), with an Officer who must hold a certificate not lower than that of (i) a mate and (ii) a navigational watchkeeping officer. Under section 76(2) a home-trade ship of less than two hundred tons gross and engaged in the coasting trade of India, when going to sea, has to be manned by (a) a duly certified master and (b) an officer holding a certificate not lower than that of a navigational watchkeeping officer. Section 78 sets out the certificates of competency which can be granted in accordance with the provisions of the Act for the grades set out therein. Section 100 provides that the Master of every Indian ship except a home-trade ship of less than two hundred tons gross shall enter into an agreement in accordance with the Act with every seamen whom he engages in, and carries to sea as one of his crew from any port in India. Section 101 provides the forms and contents of the Agreement to be entered into and to be signed by the master and the seaman. Section 103(1) provides certain special provisions in respect of crew of Indian ship. Section 103(2) provides for certain additional requirement with the crew of a foreign going Indian ship. Similarly, by virtue of sub-section (3) of section 103 there are additional requirements in the case of crew of a home trade Indian ship of two hundred tons gross or more. I am presently not adverting to the definition of 'coasting ship' as introduced by Act 21 of 1966 by insertion of sub-section 3(1)(a) as that would be dealt subsequently. Considering the above, therefore what were the classes of categories of Indian ships, before the introduction of the new definition of 'coasting ship' by Act 21 of 1966. A perusal of sections 3(13), 3(16), 76, 101 and 103 would contemplate the following categories:--- 1) A foreign going ship to mean a ship not being a home-trade ship. 2) A home-trade ship to mean a ship not exceeding 3000 tons gross, employed with trading in any port or place in India or any other port or place on continent of India or between ports or places in India and ports or places in Ceylon, Maladive Islands, Federation of Malaya, Singapore or Burma. 2) A home-trade ship to mean a ship not exceeding 3000 tons gross, employed with trading in any port or place in India or any other port or place on continent of India or between ports or places in India and ports or places in Ceylon, Maladive Islands, Federation of Malaya, Singapore or Burma. Therefore, under the Act as it then stood, a ship had either to be a foreign going ship or a home trade ship. It is in that context that sections 76, 101 and 103 become relevant. Section 76 recognises only a foreign going ship, a home trade ship and makes for exception in the case of a home trade ship of less than 200 tons gross. Depending on the nature of the ship articles between Master and Crew in respect of every kind of ship will have to be signed by virtue of section 100 and in terms of section 101. There are specific provisions in so far as foreign going ship and home trade ship as set out under sections 103(2) and 103(3). Therefore previous to 1966, depending on whether it was a foreign going ship or a home trade ship, it had to be manned as required by section 76 and the master was bound to enter into articles with crew as required by sections 100, 101 and 103. 5.With this background the question emerges, whether the amendment brought to the Act by sub-section (1)(a) to section 3 has brought about any change or created another category of ship in respect of which the provisions of section 76 or for that matter section 103(2) would not be attracted. Parliament by Act 21 of 1966 which came into force with effect from 28th May, 1966 brought in the definition of 'coasting ship' to mean a ship exclusively employed in trading between any port or place in India and any other ports or places on the continent of India or between the ports or places in India and ports or places in Ceylon or Burma. While this definition was introduced correspondingly Parliament has chosen not to amend either section 76 or for that matter section 103. While this definition was introduced correspondingly Parliament has chosen not to amend either section 76 or for that matter section 103. If coasting ship for the purpose of manning or entering into article has to be considered to be a class apart from a foreign going ship and a home trade ship in my opinion section 76 also ought to have been amended. Whilst considering an amendment brought to an Act the Court must also consider whether the amendment was brought about to remove any mischief. Provision of section 76 are provisions pertaining to manning of the ship. These are primarily with the object of safe guarding of the crew and the goods which it carries. If the argument contended on behalf of the respondent is to be accepted then in so far as a coasting ship is concerned the only senior officer would be the certified master. Examine this vis-a-vis sub-section (2) of section 76. Even a home trade ship of less than 200 tons gross has to engage apart from a duly certified master, an officer holding a certificate not lower than that of a navigational watchkeeping officer. In case of a coasting ship even this minimum requirement of an officer holding a certificate not lower than that of a navigational watchkeeping officer will have to be dispensed with. To my mind it could never have been the intention of the Legislature which has been amending the Act from time to time to meet International obligation, that it would lower the safety requirement by reducing the technical personnel on board. If that be the case, does the definition as introduced serve any purpose. This is because an amendment to an Act by introducing and inserting a new definition cannot be held to be otiose. It is the duty of the Court to give effect to the intent of the Legislation. Amendment having been specifically introduced in 1966. What then was the object of the amendment. The Statement of Objects and Reasons forms a part of the Bill as introduced in the Rajya Sabha on 9th December, 1965. The Statement of Object and Reasons sets out that the minimum standards laid down in the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958 which merchant ships should comply with in the interest of safety of life and property at sea are based on the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1948. The Statement of Object and Reasons sets out that the minimum standards laid down in the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958 which merchant ships should comply with in the interest of safety of life and property at sea are based on the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1948. At the Fourth International Conference of Safety of Life at Sea which met in London in May-June, 1960 under the aegis of the Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organization, the 1948 Convention was reviewed in the light of the experience of various countries during the intervening period. It was decided to replace the Convention by a new Convention known as International Convention of Safety of Life at Sea, 1960. The new Convention was adopted on 17th June, 1960. The Convention was signed amongst others by the representatives of Government of India. The objects and reasons further sets out that as a prelude to depositing India's acceptance of the 1960 convention, it is necessary to amend the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958 suitably. It is, therefore, clear that the amendment was brought out to be in conformity with the International convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1960. The aim of the amendment therefore never could be to reduce the safety standards on board the ship, if the argument on behalf of the respondents is to be accepted. On the contrary, it was the aim and object of the Legislature to provide for additional safeguard as required by the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea. The object therefore was to ensure safety of life and property. By introducing the amendment therefore there was no mischief that parliament was seeking to remedy. If that be the purpose then why the need for introducing the definition of a coasting ship. To my mind that is clear from some of the provisions like section 299-A introduced by Act of 1966. Section 299-A falls under the Chapter of Stability information. By virtue of sub-section (2) a power is given to the Central Government to exempt from requirements of the section any ship or class of ships if it/they satisfy the predicates of section 299-A(1). In that context, a coasting ship can constitute a class of ships as contemplated by section 299-A. So read the intent and purpose behind the amendment emerges. In that context, a coasting ship can constitute a class of ships as contemplated by section 299-A. So read the intent and purpose behind the amendment emerges. Once it so emerges, it cannot be said that the amendment brought about is otiose. The purpose of the amendment being ascertained it does not in any way has the effect of either reading down the definition of foreign ship under section 2(13) or a home trade ship under section 2(16). To my mind, therefore, the position even after 1966 in so far as sections 76, 100, 101 and 103 are concerned would remain the same. That being the position MV Swaraj Dweep will have to be held to be a foreign going ship. Once it is held to be a foreign going ship, before it proceeds in sea, it will have to meet all the requirements of a foreign going ship as contemplated by the Merchant Shipping Act. 6.The only other question contended on behalf of the respondents, is that the vessel to be a foreign going vessel, had to trade in any port or place in India and port or place outside India. To my mind, this interpretation sought to be given to the definition of foreign going ship has to be rejected considering the language of the definitions. It is important to consider the definitions of a foreign going ship is a ship other than a home trade ship, not exceeding 3000 tons gross and employed in trading between any place or port in India and any other port or place or between ports or places outside India. Therefore the requirement is not that the ship must necessarily ply between a places or ports in India to a place or ports outside India. What the sub-section really contemplates amongst other is that a ship of more than 3000 tons gross if it has trading between any place or port in India and any other port or place. This can only mean any other port or place in India as the expression used is 'and' that is a conjunctive. In so far as places outside India the expression used is 'or' that is a disjunctive. Therefore the vessel if it was of more than 3000 tons gross and if it trades between place or port in India to any other place or port in India would be a foreign going ship. In so far as places outside India the expression used is 'or' that is a disjunctive. Therefore the vessel if it was of more than 3000 tons gross and if it trades between place or port in India to any other place or port in India would be a foreign going ship. Also a ship by virtue of the inclusion of definition even if it is trading in countries set out in these definitions also is a 'home trade ship' of more than 3000 tons gross, if it plies in any ports or places in Ceylon, Maladive Islands, Federation of Malaya, Singapore or Burma could also be a foreign going ship. In a like manner a ship if it plies on the continent of India and is more than 3000 tons gross is a foreign going vessel. Therefore, to my mind, there is no ambiguity in so far as definition of 'foreign going ship'. In these circumstances, MV Swaraj Dweep as it applies between a port and place in India to another port and place in India and is of more than 3000 tons gross, would be a foreign going ship. 7.In the light of that the following order :--- i) Rule made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a) of the petition. ii) It is further directed that the respondent No. 1 will not permit MV Swaraj Dweep to sail without complying with the requirements of sections 76, 101 and 103 and the other requirements of the Merchant Shipping Act. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Rule made absolute.