JUDGMENT :- Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J. The instant appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 25th February, 2011 passed in CAN No.16 of 2011, CAN No.33 of 2011 and CAN No.36 of 2011 in WP N.1375 of 2010 by a learned Single Judge of this Court sitting in the Circuit Bench at Port Blair by which not only the order dated 5th January, 2011 passed by another learned Single Judge of this Hon’ble Court, sitting in Circuit was recalled and the writ petition was directed to be reconsidered afresh after exchange of affidavits between the parties but also two applications filed by two different set of applicants for their addition as respondents in the said writ petition, were allowed. For proper appreciation of the merit of this appeal, let me give a brief background of the present litigation. The present writ petition being W.P. No.1375 of 2010 was filed by the appellant herein seeking issuance of direction upon the respondent authorities to allow the boat operators to ply their vessels only after complying with the terms and conditions as specifically mentioned in the guidelines dated 15th January, 2010 which was framed by the Director General of Shipping pursuant to the direction passed by another learned Single Judge of this Hon’ble Court sitting in Circuit in the earlier writ petition being W.P. No.302 of 2008 on 16th June, 2009. Thus, in short, the appellants herein wanted to ply their vessels by complying with the terms and conditions of the said guidelines framed by the Director General of Shipping. The said writ petition being W.P. No.1375 of 2010 was allowed by a learned Single Judge of this Court sitting in Circuit on 5th January, 2011, whereby the respondent authorities were directed to allow the boat operators to ply their vessels only after complying with the terms and conditions specifically mentioned in the guidelines dated 15th January, 2010 framed by the Director General of Shipping. In fact, apart from the appellant/writ petitioner and the respondent No.7 and the Administration of A & N Islands, none of the other respondents was present at the time of hearing of this writ petition. Fact remains that the writ petition was disposed of at the Motion stage without inviting any affidavit from any of the parties. In fact, apart from the appellant/writ petitioner and the respondent No.7 and the Administration of A & N Islands, none of the other respondents was present at the time of hearing of this writ petition. Fact remains that the writ petition was disposed of at the Motion stage without inviting any affidavit from any of the parties. After disposal of the said writ petition, an application for recall of the said order dated 5th January, 2011 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court sitting in Circuit was filed by the Administration primarily on the ground that since the said writ petition was disposed of at the Motion stage, certain material facts which were very relevant for deciding the issue involved in this writ petition, could not be placed before His Lordship at the time of disposal of the said writ petition due to non-availability of proper instructions from his clients which again was caused due to non-joinder of the appropriate department of the administration as party in the said writ petition. It is further stated in the said recalling application that reasonable opportunity of hearing was not given to the official respondents/applicants before disposal of the said writ petition. Mr. Mandal, learned Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents submitted that even no opportunity for filing affidavit was given to his client though a prayer was made by him at the time of hearing of the writ petition. Suppression of a relevant notification issued sometime in 1972 by the petitioner, was also complained of by the official respondents in the said application for recall. The said application for recall was registered as CAN No.16 of 2011. The other two applications being CAN No.33 of 2011 and CAN No.36 of 2011 were filed by two sets of applicants praying for their impleadment in the writ petition as respondents therein. Considering the seriousness of the matter involved in the writ petition concerning the safety and security of the life and properties of thousands of tourists traveling in the ships in these Islands, another learned Single Judge of this Hon’ble Court sitting in the next Circuit recalled the order dated 5th January, 2011 passed by another learned Single Judge of this Court sitting in the earlier Circuit, by which the said writ petition was disposed of as mentioned above. While allowing the said application for recall, the learned Trial Judge also took serious exception as certain material facts particularly the notification issued in 1972, which according to His Lordship ought to have been placed by the petitioner before the learned Trial Judge in course of hearing of the writ petition, were suppressed. It was also recorded in the impugned order that all the parties to the writ petition excepting the writ petitioner agreed for recall of the order dated 5th January, 2011 by which the writ petition was disposed of, so that the writ petition is reconsidered afresh after exchange of affidavits between the parties. His Lordship further recorded in the impugned order that the writ petitioner did not file any affidavit to the recall petition filed by the Administration, which is an incorrect finding, as it appears from the record that an affidavit filed by the writ petitioner to the said recall petition, is on record. The propriety of the said order is under challenge in this appeal. As a matter of fact, while this appeal was taken up for consideration by this Court, the learned Counsel appearing for all the parties, instead of restricting their submission with regard to the scope and/or ambit of the application for recall, in fact, addressed this Court on the merit of the writ petition. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and after taking into consideration the nature of the dispute involved in this writ petition concerning safety and security of thousands of tourists traveling in ships in these Islands, this Court also feels that the writ petition ought not to have been disposed of in such a slipshod manner, particularly, when this Court finds that the legality of the recommendations made by the Director General of Shipping is also questioned by the official respondents viz. the administration of A & N Islands. Mrs. Nag, learned advocate appearing for the writ petitioner/respondent expressed her allergic concern about the findings of the learned trial judge regarding suppression of material facts particularly the notification issued in 1972, as according to her, the said notification had no relevance in the fact of the instant case and as such the said notification was not referred to by her client in the writ petition. Be that as it may, this Court cannot forget the well known dictum that justice should not only be done but justice should appear to the parties to have been done by the Court. Thus, even without entering into the question as to whether the writ petitioner was guilty for suppression of material facts before the learned Trial Judge, this Court holds that this writ petition is required to be re-heard after exchange of affidavits between the parties and this conclusion is arrived at by this Court only by considering the seriousness involved in this writ petition concerning the safety and security of thousands of tourists traveling in ships in these Islands. Before concluding, this Court cannot forget to mention that even the Director General of Shipping was not happy with the order passed by learned Single Judge of this Court on 16th June, 2009 in W.P. No.302 of 2008 pursuant to which the aforesaid guidelines were framed by the Director General of Shipping on 15th June, 2010. Such unhappiness of Director General of Shipping is reflected from the application filed by him praying for review of the order dated 16th June, 2009 passed in W.P. No.302 of 2008. The said application filed on behalf of the Director General of Shipping is still pending for consideration before this Court. As such, the ultimate shape which the said guideline will take, if the application for review is allowed, is still unknown to this Court. As such, this Court feels that the operation of the said guidelines should be kept in abeyance until the matter in issue is considered in great details. Thus, this Court holds that the impugned order by which the order dated 5th January, 2011 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court disposing of the writ petition, was recalled by the subsequent Bench of this Court, sitting in the next Circuit does not call for any interference in this appeal. We, however, make it clear that the recording of the finding regarding suppression of material facts by the petitioner in the order impugned, is merely a tentative finding and as such, the said finding will not be binding upon the parties at the time of hearing of this writ petition. We, however, make it clear that the recording of the finding regarding suppression of material facts by the petitioner in the order impugned, is merely a tentative finding and as such, the said finding will not be binding upon the parties at the time of hearing of this writ petition. We also record herein that applicability of the said notification issued in 1972, to the matter in issue, cannot be decided without entering into the merit of the said writ petition in great details. As such, we refrain ourselves from making any observation regarding the appellant’s contention regarding suppression of material facts by the writ petitioner. We also want to record herein that it was also the duty of the respondents to place the said notification before the Court, when they considered such notification was relevant on the issue. However, we are satisfied with the reasons for such non-disclosure of the said notification of 1972 by the Administration, as disclosed in the recall petition. With regard to the other part of the impugned order by which two applications for addition of parties filed by two different sets of applicants were allowed by the learned Single Judge, this Court agrees with the findings of the learned Single Judge that the presence of those applicants, is necessary for complete adjudication of the dispute involved in the said writ petition. As such, this Court does not feel any necessity to interfere with that part of the impugned order. Accordingly, both the application as well as the appeal stand disposed of with a request to the learned Single Judge to expedite the disposal of the writ petition as far as possible. Time for filing affidavit-in-opposition to the writ petition by the respondents as well as added respondents, is extended for a further period of three weeks from date; reply, if any, be filed by the petitioner within a week thereafter. Let the writ petition be placed for hearing before the learned Single Judge in the next available Circuit after exchange of affidavits between the parties.