Judgment :- The petitioner has filed the above writ petition seeking to issue a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent - Principal Officer, Registrar of Indian Ships Mercantile Marine Department, Mumbai to recognise the petitioner as the owner of Dumb Barge Bulmingadale now docked in Tuticorin Port. 2. The case of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder: The petitioner is a Private Limited Company engaged in the business of ship-breaking. During May, 2001, the second respondent called for tenders for sale of a Barge by name Bulmingdale. The petitioner Company submitted its tender and offered to by the Barge for a consideration of Rs.30 lakhs. The tender was accepted by the 2nd respondent and on payment of the entire sum of Rs.30 lakhs, the second respondent by a proceedings dated 31.08.2001, requested the petitioner to take delivery of the Barge from Zone B berth within 60 days from 31.08.2001. The petitioner took delivery of the Barge on 11.09.2002 at 17.00 hours. The Barge is still in the Tuticorin Port Trust and the petitioner is paying the port charges. On 15.04.2003, the petitioner submitted a petition before the first respondent, requesting the first respondent to register the Barge in their name. The second respondent by a letter dated 20.03.2003, confirmed the sale of Barge to enable them to register the vessel in the name of the petitioner. The second respondent also sent a letter to the first respondent stating that the Barge was sold to the petitioner exercising powers under Section 64 of the Major Port Trust Act and Section 42 of the Indian Ports Act. The first respondent has sent a communication to the petitioner stating that the transfer of registry of Dumb Barge is kept in abeyance since the Bank of India, Mahalakshmi Branch, Mumbai has claimed lien on the vessel. 3. Under Section 64 for the Major Port Trust Act, the vessel was arrested for non-payment of dues and after due notification it was sold to the petitioner. The sale was effected exercising statutory power by the 2nd respondent. The petitioner is the owner of the vessel. The first respondent cannot refuse to register the vessel in the name of the petitioner. The petitioner has entered into an agreement with Desai and Company, Mumbai for sale of Barge. The Barge is rusting and is to be removed to the dry Dock in Mumbai for repairs. The petitioner is the owner of the vessel. The first respondent cannot refuse to register the vessel in the name of the petitioner. The petitioner has entered into an agreement with Desai and Company, Mumbai for sale of Barge. The Barge is rusting and is to be removed to the dry Dock in Mumbai for repairs. The petitioner cannot move the Barge and tow the same to Mumbai unless necessary entry is made in the records maintained by the first respondent, recognizing the petitioner as the owner of the vessel. Since the first respondent has failed to exercise his statutory duty, having no other effective remedy, filed the above writ petition. 4. Pursuant to the notice issued by this Court, the Deputy Chief Ship Surveyor has filed a counter affidavit, wherein it is stated that the first respondent is the statutory body appointed under the provisions of the Indian Coasting Vessels Act, 1838 (in short "the Act"), to maintain the record of the registration of vessels under the said Act. Under the provisions of the Act, the name and number of every vessel employed shall be entered in a book to be maintained by the person authorised to make such registry. M/s. Shiva Marketing Limited had registered the said Dumb Barge with their office some time in 1997. Thereafter, they informed their Department that they had taken a mortgage on the said vessel with Bank of India. The first respondent had received an application on 15.04.2003 from the petitioner, for transferring registration of the Barge "Blumingdale" under the Act in their name along with certain supporting documents thereto. As per the records available, the said Barge had been mortgaged with Bank of India, hence the first respondent by their letter dated 25.04.2003, informed the said Bank of the information received by their Office. The first respondent as a statutory authority bound to follow certain rules and norms in the matter of discharge from ownership or registration thereof. Only in exercise of their statutory duty they have called upon the petitioner to produce either a No Objection Certificate from Bank of India or a letter addressed to them from the Tuticorin Port Trust. In the absence of these documents, the first respondent cannot be compelled to recognise the petitioner as a owner of the dumb Barge Bulmingadale. 5. Heard, Mr. V. Selvaraj, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. In the absence of these documents, the first respondent cannot be compelled to recognise the petitioner as a owner of the dumb Barge Bulmingadale. 5. Heard, Mr. V. Selvaraj, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Rajalakshmi for Mrs. M.T. Arunan, learned Additional Central Government Standing counsel for the respondents. 6. It is seen from the information furnished, based on the offer of the petitioner, acceptance and payment of entire sum of Rs.30 lakhs, the second respondent - Tuticorin Port Trust in their proceedings dated 31.08.2001, requested the petitioner to take delivery of Barge from their Dock within 60 days from 31.08.2001. There is no dispute that the petitioner has complied with certain other formalities. However, it is seen that the first respondent is a statutory body, as per the provisions of the Act, they have to maintain the record of registration of mortgages under the said Act. It is seen from the counter affidavit of the first respondent that under the provisions of the Act, the name and number of every vessel employed, fishing vessel and harbor craft and her burthen along with the names of her own / owners shall be entered in a Book to be maintained by the person authorised to make such registry. It is further seen that the register shall be maintained by the Principal Officer, Mercantile Marine Department, Mumbai and at other places by the Collector of Sea Customs or such other persons as may be appointed by the Central Government. 7. It is the claim of the first respondent that one M/s. Shiva Marketing Limited has registered the very same Dumb Barge with their office sometime in 10.09.1997. They further informed the first respondent that they had taken a mortgage on the said vessel with Bank of India. It is also stated that as per the records available in the office of the first respondent, the said Barge had been mortgaged with Bank of India and it is seen that the request of the petitioner was communicated by the first respondent to the Bank of India in their letter dated 25.04.2003. It is also stated that as per the records available in the office of the first respondent, the said Barge had been mortgaged with Bank of India and it is seen that the request of the petitioner was communicated by the first respondent to the Bank of India in their letter dated 25.04.2003. Apart from the counter affidavit, the first respondent has also filed a typed set containing an order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal No.II, Mumbai in O.A.No.2059 of 2000 dated 26.05.2002 and a letter dated 08.07.2003 from M/s. Vadia Ghanday and Company to Government of India, Ministry of Shipping, Mercantile Marine Department, Mumbai - first respondent herein. 8. A perusal of those documents show that pursuant to the miscellaneous application for appointment of a Private Receiver made by Bank of India, Mahalakhsmi Branch, who are the mortgagees of the captioned two Dumb Barge in the Debts Recovery Tribunal in Original Application No.2059 of 2000, the learned Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal No.II, Mumbai by its order dated 26.05.2003, appointed Bank of India as the Receiver in respect of the Barges. In the same letter, they requested the first respondent to disclose the location of the said Barges to enable the Receiver to take possession of the same and also requested the first respondent not to transfer the Barge to any purchaser as the same are mortgaged to Bank of India, who has been appointed as the Private Receiver pursuant to the order dated 26.05.2003. They also enclosed copy of the order dated 26.05.2003 and miscellaneous application to the first respondent for ready reference. A perusal of the order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Mumbai dated 26.05.2003, also confirms the same. 9. In the light of the information furnished in the counter affidavit, order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal,II, Mumbai in O.A.No.2059 of 2000 dated 26.05.2003 to the effect that the first respondent being a statutory body under the provisions of the Act, I am of the view that though the petitioner has purchased the Dumb Barge Bulmingadale by a valid sale, no direction as claimed by the petitioner be issued to the first respondent. In other words, mandamus cannot be issued to a statutory authority, to violate the order of another statutory authority. On this ground, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. In other words, mandamus cannot be issued to a statutory authority, to violate the order of another statutory authority. On this ground, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. However, it would be open to the petitioner to approach the Receiver, namely Bank of India or move the Debts Recovery Tribunal II, Mumbai to vindicate their grievance. Consequently, connected WPMP., is also dismissed.