JUDGMENT : 1. The 1 st petitioner is an association of local shipping agents/ steamer agents, rendering Crew change and other allied services like Bunkering, Ship handling, Ship supply, Painting, Repair, Survey, Engineering, Laundry, etc. to vessels calling at the Vizhinjam Seaport. The Vizhinjam Seaport is managed by the Kerala Maritime Board, established by the State Government under the Kerala Maritime Board Act, 2017. The 2 nd petitioner is the Managing Director of M/s. Dowins Resources Pvt. Ltd. and a member of the Association of Local Steamer Agents. The petitioners are aggrieved by Ext.P3 order of the 2 nd respondent, withdrawing the controlled crew change services which, according to them, were being rendered from the Inner and Outer Anchorages of Vizhinjam Port. The petitioners, therefore, seek the following reliefs: (a) Issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction calling for Exhibits P3 and quash the same. (b) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 2 nd and 3 rd Respondent to permit crew change at the inner and outer anchorage of the Vizhinjam Port on the request of petitioners and/or option of Port authority at Vizhinjam and/or the Kerala Maritime Board. 2. The essential facts, as narrated in the writ petition, are as under: The Vizhinjam Seaport is one of the 17 minor ports in the State of Kerala managed by the Kerala Maritime Board. Due to their shallow draft/draught and short berth lengths, these ports cannot accommodate medium to large vessels, mother vessels, and supertankers. As a result, foreign and Indian vessels will not call at these ports for services, including crew change. Globally, crew change services involve the de-boarding (sign off) of crews from the Vessels upon completion of their contractual term and boarding (sign on) of fresh crew after vacation. Crew change facility is provided at all Major and Minor ports in India at its Berth and Anchorage, and can take place in the high seas while the Vessel is sailing and also at Outer or Inner Anchorage close to a particular Port. Most ship- owners of mother vessels/super tankers and huge vessels bound for other countries prefer crew change in the outer anchorage or inner anchorage, since the exercise can be undertaken without deviating from the normal route and is a cheaper and faster option. Most ship- owners of mother vessels/super tankers and huge vessels bound for other countries prefer crew change in the outer anchorage or inner anchorage, since the exercise can be undertaken without deviating from the normal route and is a cheaper and faster option. On the other hand, a ship coming inside the port for crew change will incur substantial expense towards port dues, berth hire and pilotage charges. The Vizhinjam Seaport is an Authorised Immigration Check Post for entry into and exit from India of International Ships with valid travel documents. On the strength of such designation, crew change was happening at the inner and outer anchorage of Vizhinjam Seaport from 2019 onwards. While so, the spread of the Covid-19 pandemic led to the suspension of entry of all persons/crew through India's borders, resulting in seamen being stranded in the Vessels for months after the expiry of their contract. Taking the above and other factors into consideration, the Ministry of Home Affairs, vide Exhibit P8 order dated 15.04.2020, set out the permissible and impermissible activities during the Covid Lockdown. Thereafter, by Ext.P9 order dated 21.04.2020, an amendment was brought to Ext.P8, permitting the movement of Indian Seafarers. Later, by Exts.P11 and P12 orders, permission was granted to foreign seafarers also to sign off and sign on at Indian Ports. On the strength of the aforementioned orders, the 2 nd petitioner filed W.P.(C). No.16787 of 2020, seeking an order permitting crew change for the vessels calling at the Vizhinjam Seaport’s outer anchorage. By Ext.P24 interim order, this Court permitted the sign-on and sign-off facility to the foreign seafarers, in the two vessels mentioned in the order, from the outer anchorage of the Vizhinjam Seaport. By Ext.P25 order, the interim direction was made applicable to all vessels by deleting the names of the vessels from the earlier order. Consequently, it became possible for the ships bound for other countries to conduct crew change at the inner and outer anchorage of the Vizhinjam Seaport. While matters stood thus, Ext.P7 order dated 01.04.2022 was issued by the Directorate General of Shipping, withdrawing all Covid-19 related directives and SoPs. This led to the issuance of Ext.P3 order by the Bureau of Immigration, withdrawing the controlled crew change services rendered from the outer anchorage of Vizhinjam Seaport with immediate effect. 3. Heard, Senior Advocate V.J. Mathew, ably assisted by Adv. This led to the issuance of Ext.P3 order by the Bureau of Immigration, withdrawing the controlled crew change services rendered from the outer anchorage of Vizhinjam Seaport with immediate effect. 3. Heard, Senior Advocate V.J. Mathew, ably assisted by Adv. Kevin Mathew George, for the petitioners, Advocates Suvin R. Menon for respondents 1 to 3, Jaishankar V Nair for the 4 th respondent and K.P. Sudheer for the 5 th respondent. 4. The learned Senior Counsel put forth the following contentions in support of the prayer for quashing Ext.P3. The Government of India has designated Vizhinjam Seaport as an Authorised Immigration Check Post for entry into and exit from India, and the Kerala Maritime Board has declared the Vizhinjam Seaport as an International Crew Change and Bunkering Terminal. As per Section 2(1)(d) of the Merchant Shipping (Regulation of Entry of Ships into Ports, Anchorages and Offshore facilities) Rules, 2012, ‘port facility’ includes the anchorage of ships also. Therefore, inner and outer anchorages are part of port facilities and is within port limits. In India, crew change service is offered to the Indian and foreign crews of both Indian and foreign vessels. For Indian seafarers, crew change is recognised and regulated by Sections 114 to 124 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958. Additionally, India is also under an obligation, as per Paragraph 7 of Standard A2.5.1 of Regulation 2.5 of Maritime Labour Convention, 2006, to facilitate crew change at its Ports. The Kerala Maritime Board, which is the lawful authority, having declared Vizhinjam Seaport as an international crew change and bunkering terminal, the 2 nd respondent cannot unilaterally withdraw the anchorage and crew change facility. Such action amounts to illegal interference with the authority of the Kerala Maritime Board. The inner anchorage of the Vizhinjam Seaport is very close to the Port's berth (less than 1 Nautical Mile) and is having 20-25 meter natural draft, which is a major attraction to the international shipping community, as they can do crew change at the Vizhinjam Port at very little cost. In fact, during 2020-2022, the local Steamer Agents had brought 730 huge Mother vessels, Mega large vessels and Super tankers to the inner anchorage for crew change, bunkering and other services. This was done under the supervision of Customs, Immigration and Maritime Board officials as well as the Port Health Officer. In fact, during 2020-2022, the local Steamer Agents had brought 730 huge Mother vessels, Mega large vessels and Super tankers to the inner anchorage for crew change, bunkering and other services. This was done under the supervision of Customs, Immigration and Maritime Board officials as well as the Port Health Officer. By Exhibit P7 order, the Directorate General of Shipping had only withdrawn the SoPs issued on account of Covid-19. The order is not intended to restrict or stop crew change or other similar services rendered at the outer or inner anchorage of Vizhinjam and other Ports. The 2nd respondent issued Ext.P3 order by misinterpreting Ext. P7 and without consulting any of the stakeholders. Projecting "declining Covid- 19 cases" as a ground for withdrawing the controlled crew change services is irrational and militates against the fundamental right to do business guaranteed to the petitioners. 5. Learned Central Government Counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 3 and 4 put forth the following common contentions: Though Vizhinjam Seaport was declared as an International Crew Change and Bunkering Terminal in 2019, no crew change had taken place in the port till the issuance of the Covid-19 related SoP in May 2020. In fact, until the issuance of Ext.P27 certificate on 23.06.2023, Vizhinjam Seaport did not have the infrastructure or facilities mandated under the provisions of the International Code for the Security of Ships and of Port Facilities (ISPS Code). Normally, immigration services are restricted to the Wharf in ports across India and are regulated by the procedure prescribed in the Visa Manual, 2019. Going by the provisions of the Visa Manual, crew change from/to non-scheduled vessels berthed at outer anchorage can be done only in case of exigencies like medical emergency, that too, after obtaining permission from the FRRO/FRO concerned. Permitting crew change for non-scheduled vessels at outer anchorage is a practice involving high risk. Even then, crew change at outer anchorage was permitted considering the Indian and Foreign Seafarers were continuing in their vessels after expiry of the contract period. As the security risk involved in permitting crew change in the high seas is high, the relaxation granted during the pandemic was decided to be withdrawn, when the number of Covid cases reduced. Even then, crew change at outer anchorage was permitted considering the Indian and Foreign Seafarers were continuing in their vessels after expiry of the contract period. As the security risk involved in permitting crew change in the high seas is high, the relaxation granted during the pandemic was decided to be withdrawn, when the number of Covid cases reduced. In Ext.P13 DGS order dated 25.01.2021 itself, it was made clear that the sign-on/sign-off of foreign crew at the outer anchorage is a temporary measure and would revert to the provisions prescribed in the Visa Manual, once Covid-19 pandemic protocols are removed. The ship owners and agents prefer crew change at inner and outer anchorage, as they can reduce expenses by forcing the crew to embark and disembark in risky conditions, which may lead to death or severe injuries. One example of the security risk posed by granting such permission is Crime No.1318 of 2021 registered against the 2 nd petitioner at the Valiyathura Police Station, for having submitted invalid air tickets before the Seaport Duty Officer, Vizhinjam as well as the FRRO, for obtaining Temporary Landing Permit for nine foreigners, thereby cheating the Bureau of Immigration. As the exemption granted during Covid-19 period does not confer any right on the petitioners, they have no locus to challenge withdrawal of the exemption. 6. Learned standing counsel for the 5 th respondent made the following submissions, in an attempt to support the contentions of the petitioners: The Kerala Maritime Board Act, 2017 was enacted with the objective of constituting the Kerala Maritime Board and vesting it with the administration, control and management of all non-major ports in the State. By Ext.P5 notification, the Central Government designated Vizhinjam Seaport as an Authorised Immigration Check Post for entry into/exit from India of International Ships/Cruise with valid travel documents. Thereafter, by Ext.P6 Resolution, the Board resolved to declare Vizhinjam Seaport as an International Crew Change Terminal. While so, national lock down was imposed and thereafter by Exts.P9 to P12, permission was granted for conducting crew change from/to Indian and foreign vessels at the outer anchorage of ports. The crew change activities carried out at the Vizhinjam Seaport thereafter, generated huge revenue for the Government. While so, national lock down was imposed and thereafter by Exts.P9 to P12, permission was granted for conducting crew change from/to Indian and foreign vessels at the outer anchorage of ports. The crew change activities carried out at the Vizhinjam Seaport thereafter, generated huge revenue for the Government. Therefore, when the crew change activities were stopped all of a sudden, the Chief Minister of the State himself addressed Ext.P21 letter to the Hon’ble Prime Minister, requesting to permit continuance of crew change operations in the Vizhinjam Seaport. As of this date, Vizhinjam Seaport has the requisite infrastructure and facilities for undertaking crew change at the port and the anchorages. 7. At the outset it is to be noted that, while 'major ports' fall under Item 27 in List I (Union List) of the VIIth Schedule to the Constitution of India, 'ports other than major ports' are included as Item 31 in List III (Concurrent List). A 'major port' is defined in Section 3(8) of the Indian Ports Act, as any port which the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette declare, or may have declared, to be a major port under any law for the time being in force. Thus, by implication, all ports other than those declared as major ports are minor ports. As per Section 3(9) of the Indian Ports Act, the State Government has control over minor ports for all purposes, except for making rules under clause (p) of Section 6(1) and appointment and control of Port Health Officers under Section 17 of the Act. In exercise of such power, the Government of Kerala, constituted the Kerala Maritime Board by enacting the Kerala Maritime Board Act, 2017 (KMB Act), and vested the Board with the administration, control and management of the non-major ports in the State. Section 2(u) of the KMB Act defines a 'non-major port' as a port, other than a major port declared as such by the Central Government under any law, to which this Act applies within such limits as may, from time to time, be defined by the Government under the Indian Ports Act, 1908 (Central Act 15 of 1908). 8. Section 26 of the KMB Act deals with the power of the Board to order sea-going vessels to use docks,wharves, etc. Being of relevance, the said provision is extracted below: “26. 8. Section 26 of the KMB Act deals with the power of the Board to order sea-going vessels to use docks,wharves, etc. Being of relevance, the said provision is extracted below: “26. Power of Board to order sea-going vessels to use docks, wharves etc.—(1) Subject to the provisions of Section 29 of the Customs Act, 1962 (Central Act 52 of 1962), regarding arrival of vessels and aircrafts in India when any dock, berth, wharf, quay, stage, jetty, pier or place of anchorage erected at any port or port approaches under the provisions of this Act has been completed with sufficient warehouses, sheds and appliances for receiving, landing or shipping goods or passengers from and upon sea-going vessels, the Board may, by notification published in three consecutive issues of the Official Gazette, declare that such dock, berth, wharf, quay, stage, jetty, pier or place of anchorage is ready for receiving, landing and shipping or for landing or for shipping goods or passengers from and upon sea-going vessels. (2) As from the date of publication of such notification for the third time, it shall be lawful for the Board, from time to time, when there is room at such dock, berth, wharf, quay, stage, jetty, pier or place of anchorage to order to come alongside of such dock, berth, wharf, quay, stage, jetty, pier or place of anchorage for the purpose of landing and shipping goods or passengers or for landing or for shipping the same, any sea- going vessel within the port or port approaches which has not commenced to discharge goods or passengers or which being about to take in goods or passengers has not commenced to do so: Provided that, before making such order the Board shall have regard, as far as possible, to the convenience of such vessel and of the shippers in respect of the use of any particular dock, berth, wharf, quay, stage, jetty, pier or place of anchorage: Provided further that if the Board is not the Conservator of the Port, the Board shall not itself make the order as aforesaid but shall require the Conservator of the Port or other person exercising the rights, powers and authorities of the Conservator of the Port to make such order.” (Underline supplied) 9. The above provision confers the Board with the power to require any sea-going vessel to come alongside the dock, berth, wharf, quay, stage, jetty, pier or place of anchorage within the port or port approaches for landing and shipping goods or passengers. Section 2(y) of the KMB Act defines ‘port approaches’ as those parts of the navigable rivers and channels leading to the port, along with the roads and rail infrastructures within the port limits. There is no provision in the KMB Act empowering the Kerala Maritime Board to permit sea-going vessels to carry out crew change activities in the outer anchorage, beyond the port limits. In this context it will be also apposite to note that, while ‘inner anchorages’ are typically within 1 to 5 nautical miles (1.8 to 9 kms) of the sealine, 'outer anchorages' can be anywhere between 5 to 20 nautical miles (9 to 37 kms), depending on the port’s layout, traffic, and safety considerations. The territorial waters, over which the sovereignty of India extends, are up to 12 nautical miles and as per Section 4 of the Territorial Waters, Continental Shelf, Exclusive Economic Zone and Other Maritime Zones Act, 1976 , foreign ships have only right of innocent passage through the territorial waters. Therefore, the contention that the definition of ‘port facility’ in the Merchant Shipping ( Regulation of Entry of Ships into Ports, Anchorages and Offshore facilities) Rules includes the anchorages of ships and no permission is hence required for conducting crew change at anchorages, can only be rejected. All the more so since the said Rules are intended to ensure possession of insurance coverage against maritime claims for all foreign vessels of three hundred or more gross tons, while entering into or sailing out of ports, terminals, anchorages or seeking port facilities or Indian offshore facilities in Indian territorial waters. The above discussion leads to the definite conclusion that any activity by a foreign vessel beyond the port and port approaches can be done only with the permission of the Union Government. 10. As per paragraph 23.2(5)(iii)(e) of the Visa Manual, crew change from/to non-scheduled vessels having no business with the port, berthed at outer anchorage, can be allowed only in exigencies like medical emergency, after obtaining prior permission from the civil authority, i.e., FRRO/FRO concerned. The aforementioned condition was relaxed by Exts.P8 to P12 orders. 10. As per paragraph 23.2(5)(iii)(e) of the Visa Manual, crew change from/to non-scheduled vessels having no business with the port, berthed at outer anchorage, can be allowed only in exigencies like medical emergency, after obtaining prior permission from the civil authority, i.e., FRRO/FRO concerned. The aforementioned condition was relaxed by Exts.P8 to P12 orders. Though controlled crew change of foreign seafarers at Indian Ports was permitted by Ext.P12 order, immediately thereafter, Ext.P13 order was issued amending paragraph 6 of Ext.P12 as under; “6. Along with the sign-off of foreign crew, sign-on of foreign crew shall also be facilitated at Indian ports subject to- (a) sign-on/sign-off of foreign crew at outer anchorage shall be allowed without any restriction only after obtaining prior clearance from FRRO concerned. (b) This will be only a temporary measure during the period when specific protocols are in place due to COVID 19 pandemic. Once COVID 19 pandemic protocols are removed, sign-on/sign-off procedure at outer anchorage should revert to the provisions as prescribed in sub-para (iii) of para 23.2 of the Visa Manual 2019." (Underline supplied) 11. The above amendment made it unequivocally clear that the sign-on/sign-off at outer anchorage is a temporary measure and once Covid-19 pandemic protocols are removed, the procedure should revert to the provisions prescribed in sub-para (3) of paragraph 23.2 of the Visa Manual, 2019. The said amendment brought about by Ext.P13 remains unchallenged. The withdrawal of Covid-19 related directives and SoPs, vide Ext.P7 order dated 01.04.2022, being in accordance with the amendment and Ext.P3 communication dated 20.07.2022, withdrawing controlled crew change services rendered from outer anchorage of Vizhinjam Seaport, being in terms of Ext. P7 order, cannot therefore be challenged. 12. Although learned Senior Counsel contended that in Vizhinjam Seaport, crew change at the inner and outer anchorages was being conducted prior to the issuance of the Covid-19 related orders also, going by the documents on record, crew change from the outer anchorage was undertaken as per Exts.P10 to P13 orders and the interim orders of this Court. The fact that the Vizhinjam Seaport obtained Certificate of Compliance only on 23.06.2023 also belies the contention. Another relevant aspect is that, Ext.P21 letter of the Hon’ble Chief Minister requesting continuance of the crew change facilities from the outer anchorage of Vizhinjam Seaport was declined by the Ministry of Home Affairs, with due intimation to the Prime Minister’s office. The fact that the Vizhinjam Seaport obtained Certificate of Compliance only on 23.06.2023 also belies the contention. Another relevant aspect is that, Ext.P21 letter of the Hon’ble Chief Minister requesting continuance of the crew change facilities from the outer anchorage of Vizhinjam Seaport was declined by the Ministry of Home Affairs, with due intimation to the Prime Minister’s office. The relevant portion of the reply, re-produced in Ext. R1(f), reads as follows; “Crew change facilities at Outer Anchorage was a temporary facility extended to handle the situation in the wake of Covid 19 pandemic. In normal circumstances, permission to crew change at the Outer Anchorage is not feasible in view of the existing rules and regulations. Moreover, it has come to the notice that the matter is sub-judice before the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala.” 13. If aggrieved by the Central Government's stand, it was for the State Government to pursue the matter further. The withdrawal of the exemption granted during pandemic period will not give rise to any cause of action to an Association of Steamer Agents or its member. Their business interests cannot override the security of the nation, which is one among the concerns expressed by the Central Government. 14. For the aforementioned reasons, the writ petition is dismissed.