JUDGMENT : The question raised by the petitioner in this writ petition is whether dry docking of the vessel owned by the petitioner namely, 'Hail Mary' having Certificate No. N. 89549-V002-001 is to be insisted upon overlooking the stipulations of the Classification Society, namely the additional fifth respondent, as per Exts. P4 and P5. Material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows:- 2. Petitioner is the proprietor of an institution namely M/s. Back Water Navigation Company and owns a vessel in the name and style 'Hail Mary' which is a barge with 650 Metric Tons dead weight. Presently the vessel is put in special service for fourth respondent for transportation of liquefied ammonia gas. It is submitted that the transportation of liquefied ammonia through water course has been insisted upon by this Court to divert the transportation of hazardous materials by road endangering human lives, evident from Ext.P1 judgment. The subject barge had been placed by the petitioner at the disposal of the fourth respondent pursuant to their tender and awarding of contract in favour of the petitioner for transportation of liquefied ammonia gas through Champakkara Canal from FACT Cochin Division via National Waterways 3 of India. As per the due terms of contract, fourth respondent installed bullet carriers in the barge for transportation of its raw material, liquefied ammonia in the gas bullets mounted on the barge. It is also stated that round the clock transportation and supply of ammonia is essential to meet production needs of FACT and inland vessel shall not be permitted to proceed any voyage or used for any voyage without due Certificate of Survey. Based on the Certificate of Survey the State Government issues Certificate of Registration as well and accordingly, Ext.P2 certificate of Registration is issued to the petitioner by the State Government valid upto 27.11.2018. 3. It is further submitted that the Certificate of Survey is to be issued by surveyors appointed by the State Government. The certificate of survey is a mandatory requirement for plying the vessel. As per Section 4 of the Inland Vessels Act, 1917 (for short the 'Act, 2017') and Rule 5 of the Kerala Inland Vessels Rules, 2010 (for short the 'Rules, 2010') a vessel needs to be surveyed by Classification Society specified by the Government. The certificate of survey is a mandatory requirement for plying the vessel. As per Section 4 of the Inland Vessels Act, 1917 (for short the 'Act, 2017') and Rule 5 of the Kerala Inland Vessels Rules, 2010 (for short the 'Rules, 2010') a vessel needs to be surveyed by Classification Society specified by the Government. The State Government as per Ext.P3 notification dated 13.09.2010 approved International Classification Societies to conduct survey of inland vessels. That the International body of Classification Societies namely 'International Association of Classification Societies (IACS)' comprises of the international classification societies specified in Ext.P3 and the formation of the association was initiated by the renowned international agency/classification society (RINA) namely, the additional fifth respondent. The society has its Headquarters at Italy and the said society has a tradition of more than 100 years and dealing with most and complex vessels and ships including mother ships plying through international waters as well. According to the petitioner, the certificate issued by RINA is conclusive for the issuance of Certificate of registration namely Ext.P2. Further the certificate of survey shall be issued by the State Government based on declaration of owner, in this case pertaining to the subject vessel owned by the petitioner. Petitioner had sent the declaration based on the certificate of survey by the Surveyor, in this case by RINA as per the declaration given by it as per Section 7 of Act, 1917. Based on the inspection, conducted by the Classification Society, the Certificate of Class was issued by the additional fifth respondent for the vessel specified above, evident from Ext.P4. Along with Ext.P4, ship status report specifying requirements of periodical surveys was also issued by the classification society evident from Ext. P5. According to the petitioner, certification is effected as per the due service charges provided by the petitioner, evident from Exts. P6, P6(a) and P6(b) payment invoices. However as a formality, the department of port also issued a certificate in conjunction with Ext. P4, evident from Ext.P7. It is also stated that the surveyors of the State Government are contract staffs not in the roles of the State and the said surveyors lack expertise in the matter as well. That apart, it is contended that the expertise and supremacy of classification societies is undisputed and in Ext.P3, it is reiterated. P4, evident from Ext.P7. It is also stated that the surveyors of the State Government are contract staffs not in the roles of the State and the said surveyors lack expertise in the matter as well. That apart, it is contended that the expertise and supremacy of classification societies is undisputed and in Ext.P3, it is reiterated. A letter issued by the Director of Ports in the matter of construction and operation of river sea vessels mandating and highlighting the requirement of approval from and supervision of works by classification society is evident from Ext.P8. 4. It is submitted that the present subject issue pertains to the periodical survey necessary for the vessels, in the matter of 'Hail Mary, in accordance with Rule 3 of Rules, 2010, by which the vessels are to be inspected once in every twenty four months by a surveyor in dry dock or on a slip way. However the dry docking or a slip way inspection needs to be exempted when an approved classification society conducting the periodical survey does not insist for such a dry docking. Therefore, it is the contention of the petitioner that the ship status as per Exts.P4 and P5 specify that the dry docking requirement in connection with the hull is to be effected on or before 08.09.2018. It is the contention of the petitioner that the dry docking which is a time consuming process hampers the rendition of service to fourth respondent and shall stall the operation of the vessel for a long period apart from thrusting the petitioner with exemplary costs to effect survey. Thereupon, petitioner submitted a due representation to the first respondent to extent the time for dry docking or slip way inspection upto 08.09.2018, evident from Ext.P9. These are the background facts projected by the petitioner to sustain the reliefs sought for in the writ petition. 5. First respondent has filed a counter affidavit and an additional counter affidavit denying all the claims and demands raised by the petitioner. According to the first respondent, the Rules, 2010 was brought forth on the basis of the direction issued by this Court to frame a comprehensive Rule covering all the aspects within a time limit. 5. First respondent has filed a counter affidavit and an additional counter affidavit denying all the claims and demands raised by the petitioner. According to the first respondent, the Rules, 2010 was brought forth on the basis of the direction issued by this Court to frame a comprehensive Rule covering all the aspects within a time limit. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 19(1) and all other consequential provisions of the Inland Vessels Act, 1917 and in supersession of various laws prevailing in the State in respect of guidance of the operation of the Inland Vessels and backwater navigation, the present Rules was brought into force on 15.09.2010. The Government of Kerala as per order dated 17.07.2010 appointed the first respondent as the implementing agency for the implementation of the Inland Vessel Rules, 2010. According to the first respondent as per the Rules and the provisions of the Act various duties are conferred upon the first respondent to ensure that the vessels are operated in accordance with the provisions of the Rules and the safety methods required to be followed for the operation of the vessels. That apart it is stated that the Chief Surveyor of the Kerala Port Department issued certificate of survey to the vessel on 06.11.2014 and 07.11.2015, respectively after the completion of annual surveys. As per Rule 3(6) of the Rules, 2010, the period of validity of a Certificate of Survey shall be 12 months from the date of survey. Accordingly, the validity of the survey certificate issued on 07.11.2015 has expired. The owner of the vessel has not filed any application for annual survey till date. According to Section 3(1) of the Act, 1917, an inland (mechanically propelled vessel) shall not proceed on any voyage or be used for any service unless it has a certificate of survey in force. Notice has been issued to the owner of the vessel on 19.11.2016 with a direction to stop the illegal operation of the vessel in question. The Chief Surveyor, issued instruction to the owner of the vessel for docking survey to be carried out on or before 28.10.2016. It is also stated that the said direction was issued on the basis of the power conferred under Section 7 of the Act, 1917. That apart, it is contended that evident from Ext. The Chief Surveyor, issued instruction to the owner of the vessel for docking survey to be carried out on or before 28.10.2016. It is also stated that the said direction was issued on the basis of the power conferred under Section 7 of the Act, 1917. That apart, it is contended that evident from Ext. R1(a) due to the negligence from the part of the owners and operators of the vessel there occurred a major accident on 20.05.2016. It is also contended that the vessels are used for carrying dangerous cargo Ammonia and thousands of people suffered a lot due to the accident occurred. Therefore, according to the first respondent they acted in accordance with law. 6. A reply affidavit is filed by the petitioner to the said counter affidavit refuting the allegations and reiterating the stand adopted in the writ petition. That apart it is stated that as contemplated under Rule 5 of the Rules, 2010, the vessel in question was constructed under the supervision and class survey of International Classification Society, namely the additional fifth respondent. According to the petitioner, it is unequivocally asserted by the Rules that neither first respondent nor State authorities are competent to handle the issues of having high technical overtones with respect to vessels and based on the insistence of the State authorities petitioner has spend about Rs. 38,00,000/- as per international standards for the class survey of the vessel. Ext.P12 is produced by the petitioner along with the reply under which first respondent insisted for dry docking in order to perform the survey. According to the petitioner, as per Ext.P13 notice issued by Central Government, the additional fifth respondent is appointed as surveyor to issue certificate of survey. Therefore, according to the petitioner as per Exts.P4 and P5, the survey by dry docking the vessel is required only on 08.09.2018. Therefore it is also submitted that the same is in accordance with Rule 3 of Rules, 2010. 7. However, a counter affidavit is filed by the additional fifth respondent basically contending that the fifth respondent is doing the periodical surveys of the vessel and as per Ext.P4 certificate the dry dock survey shall be necessary only by 08.09.2018 as prescribed in the certificate. 7. However, a counter affidavit is filed by the additional fifth respondent basically contending that the fifth respondent is doing the periodical surveys of the vessel and as per Ext.P4 certificate the dry dock survey shall be necessary only by 08.09.2018 as prescribed in the certificate. If any dry dock survey prior to that date is necessary, the same will be required by the fifth respondent as it has issued the class certificate for the vessel covering the entire period upto 31.03.2024. It is also assured by the fifth respondent that the vessel sails safe for this period. That apart it is stated that the statutes of the vessel is inscribed in the above certificate and the same specifies the time for each survey. The vessel in question is a category A vessel, which could be build and surveyed by the Classification Society alone as per the Kerala Inland Vessels Rules, 2010. 8. An additional counter affidavit is filed by the first respondent basically contending that the Kerala Inland Vessels Rules, 2010 has undergone an amendment as per R1(b) notification dated 06.04.2015, whereby a proviso to Sub-rule (4) of Rule 3 of the Rules, 2010 has been added as follows:- "Provided that the Chief Surveyor, Classification Society is satisfied with the condition of the vessel. If not the Chief Surveyor, Classification Society shall have the authority to recommend dry docking as required. After the period mentioned above the vessel shall undergo dry docking as in sub-rule(4) of rule 3" That apart after Sub-rule (4) of Rule 3 of the Rules, 2010, Sub-rule (4a) is added which reads thus:- "(4a) Due to shortage of dry-docking facilities, the vessels shall be inspected in dry dock once in five years in the initial period of date of implementation of these rules (till 14.09.2015):" 9. Therefore, it is the contention of the first respondent that the period provided in accordance with the amendment of Rules, 2010 has already expired and therefore, the first respondent has every authority to insist the petitioner to undergo dry docking. It is also submitted that as per the proviso the Chief Surveyor is the authority to insist the vessel owner to undergo a dry docking and apart from the Chief Surveyor the classification society is also vested with such powers. It is also submitted that as per the proviso the Chief Surveyor is the authority to insist the vessel owner to undergo a dry docking and apart from the Chief Surveyor the classification society is also vested with such powers. Anyhow the proviso makes further abundantly clear that after the period mentioned under Sub-rule (4a) of Rule 3, the vessel shall undergo dry docking as per Sub-rule (4) of Rule 3. Therefore, it is the contention of the first respondent that this amendment brought forth to the Rules, 2010 is suppressed by the petitioner and in accordance with the terms of the Rules the vessel has to undergo dry docking. It is also stated that the annual Survey and dry dock survey pertaining to the vessel of the petitioner can be finalized within a span of two weeks if petitioner makes requisite application in that regard after paying the necessary fees and fines as contemplated under the Act and Rules. It is also contended that going by the Rules of the classification of ships by the additional fifth respondent more particularly Article 3.2 mandates that certificate issued by the additional fifth respondent shall not have any legal effect or implication and as per Article 3.5 of the rules, surveys and activities performed by the Society, reports, certificates and other documents issued by the additional fifth respondent are in no way intended to replace the duties and responsibilities of other parties such as Government. The said conditions are produced as Ext. R1(c). As per Ext. R1(d) dated 19.11.2016, the first respondent has informed the petitioner that the petitioner has failed to submit the application for survey and the operation of the vessel without valid Survey Certificate is in violation of the Rules and after 28.10.2016 the operation of the vessel by the petitioner is illegal and vessel is forbidden to ply in inland waters. These are the materials available before this Court to consider the issues raised by the petitioner in this writ petition. 10. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the fourth respondent and learned counsel appearing for the fifth respondent and perused the documents on record and the pleadings put forth by the respective parties. 11. 10. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the fourth respondent and learned counsel appearing for the fifth respondent and perused the documents on record and the pleadings put forth by the respective parties. 11. It is true as contended by the petitioner in accordance with Rule 3 of the Rules, 2010, every vessel to which the provisions of the Act, 1917 applies shall be subjected to the survey specified under the Rule 3 namely:- (i) a survey before the vessel is put in service. (ii) a periodical survey once in every twelve months (iii) additional surveys as occasion demands 12. The Sub-rule (2) of the Rule 3 of the Rules, 2010 further demands that the survey before the vessel is put in service shall include a complete inspection of the hull, machinery and equipment to ensure that arrangements, material, scantlings of hull main and auxiliary machinery, life saving appliances, fire appliances and other equipments fully comply with the requirements under the Act and the Rules as are applicable in its case. The proviso thereto stipulates that the bottom of the vessel which has been surveyed or examined by a surveyor before the vessel is launched may be exempted unless the surveyor has special reasons for considering it necessary. Sub-rule (3) further stipulates that the periodical survey of vessel shall include the inspection of the whole of the hull, machinery and equipments to ensure that hull, machinery and equipments are in satisfactory condition and fit for the service for which the vessel is intended and that she complies with the requirements under the Act and the Rules as are applicable in its case. Sub-rule (4) insists that all vessels shall be inspected once in every twenty four months (as per R1(b) amendment 36 months) by a surveyor in a dry dock or in a slipway such that all portions of hull external can be examined during the hours of day light. However the proviso thereto states that a vessel may be exempted from inspection in a dry dock or in a slip way only where the approved classification society conducting the periodical survey of the vessel does not insist for the same. However the proviso thereto states that a vessel may be exempted from inspection in a dry dock or in a slip way only where the approved classification society conducting the periodical survey of the vessel does not insist for the same. Therefore the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in accordance with the proviso to Sub-rule (4) of Rule 3 of the Rules, 2010, since the petitioner is having Exts. P4 and P5 certificates issued by the additional fifth respondent, the Classification Society a dry dock insisted upon Sub-rule (4) of Rule 3 of the Rules, 2010 is not required till 08.09.2018. That is in a frequency of five years. 13. Now the question is how far the proviso to Sub- rule (4) of Rule 3 of the Rules, 2010 protects the petitioner on the basis of Exts.P4 and P5 certificates issued by the classification society. As per the amendment, evident from Ext. R1(b) produced along with additional counter affidavit filed by the first respondent the insistence for an inspection once in every twenty four months is extended to 36 months. However, Sub-rule (4a) is added after Sub-rule (4) of Rule 3 of the Rules, 2010 by which it is stated that due to shortage of dry-docking facilities, the vessels shall be inspected in dry dock once in five years in the initial period of date of implementation of these rules, till 14.09.2015. Obviously the said period is over. A proviso is added to Sub-rule (4a) by which the Chief Surveyor along with the classification society shall have the authority to recommend dry docking as required. However, the proviso further states that if not the Chief Surveyor, Classification Society shall have the authority to recommend dry docking as required, which thus means a superiority in hierarchy is provided to the Chief Surveyor of the first respondent. That apart, it is further added in the proviso that the period mentioned under Sub-rule (4a) of Rule 3 of the Rules, 2010 if over the vessel shall undergo dry docking as in Sub-rule (4) of Rule 3 which thus means the vessel of the petitioner is to undergo dry docking in accordance with the terms of the amended Rules. That apart, it is further added in the proviso that the period mentioned under Sub-rule (4a) of Rule 3 of the Rules, 2010 if over the vessel shall undergo dry docking as in Sub-rule (4) of Rule 3 which thus means the vessel of the petitioner is to undergo dry docking in accordance with the terms of the amended Rules. Moreover, the petitioner cannot still rely on the original proviso to Sub-rule (4) of Rule 3 of the Rules, 2010 and seeks the protection of the approval of the classification society. 14. Taking into account the fact situations discussed above and reckoning the documents in accordance with the terms of the amendment evident from Ext. R1(b), I do not think that the first respondent has committed any illegality in directing the petitioner as per Ext. R1(d) dated 19.11.2016 for forbidding the vessel to ply in inland waters after 28.10.2016 since on which date the certificate issued to the vessel has ceased to operate. The statutory authority is bound to follow the Rules in accordance with the terms of the amendment. Even though the amendment was brought to the Rules, evident from Ext.R1(b) dated 06.04.2015, which has come into effect on the date on the introduction of the amendment itself, the petitioner has not brought the said amendment to the notice of this Court nor petitioner has cared to challenge any of the amended provisions to sustain the original Rules. That being the situation, I do not think that the petitioner is entitled to succeed in this writ petition. 15. Moreover, the rules will have to be strictly construed in order to avoid any danger and calamity, especially due to the fact that in the vessel in question, a dangerous product namely ammonia is transported. The law makers were conscious of such aspects and it was accordingly that amendments were brought-forth. Therefore, the intention of the legislature is to be given predominance in the context. That apart, no laxity can be shown by the authority. Viewed in any angle, I do not think that the statutory authority has committed any illegality, arbitrariness or unfairness justifying interference of this Court, invoking the power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 16. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed. That apart, no laxity can be shown by the authority. Viewed in any angle, I do not think that the statutory authority has committed any illegality, arbitrariness or unfairness justifying interference of this Court, invoking the power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 16. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed. However petitioner is granted one week time from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment to produce the vessel for dry dock survey and the first respondent shall make every endeavour to complete the inspection within two weeks from the date of production of the vessel as is undertaken in the additional counter affidavit. The interim order granted by this Court on 28.10.2016 will continue till such time the vessel is produced before the statutory authority for dry dock survey. Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.