JUDGMENT : VIJAY BISHNOI, CJ. 1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner praying the following reliefs:- “(i) The provisions of Assam Inland Water Transport Regulatory Authority Act, 2018 shall not declared as inoperative for not having the Presidential assent and as such ultra virus to the Constitution of India; (ii) The provisions as contained in Sec 14(1)(k) shall not be declared as ultra virus to the Constitution of India. Upon hearing the cause or causes that may shown as your Lordships may be pleased to make the rule absolute and/or pass any further or other order or orders as your Lordships may deem fit and proper” From the above, it is noticed that though in the second prayer of the writ petition, reference of Section 14(1)(k) is given but from the pleadings it appears that essentially the petitioner is challenging the validity of Section 14(k) of the Assam Inland Water Transport Regulatory Authority Act, 2018 (hereinafter to be referred as the “Act of 2018”). 2. The petitioner, which is a registered Trade Union, has challenged the validity of the Act, 2018 as a whole and has also specifically challenged the validity of Section 14(2)(k) of the Act of 2018. 3. It is pleaded in the writ petition that Entry 32 of List-III of Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India provides for legislative power of the Parliament and the State Legislature with regard to shipping and navigation on Inland Waterways as regard mechanically propelled vessels and the rule of the roads, such as waterways and the carriage of passengers and goods on Inland Waterways, subject to the provisions of List-I of Seventh Schedule with respect to National Waterways. It is contended that under the powers of Entry 30 and Entry 32, the Parliament has enacted the Inland Waterways Authority of India Act, 1985 (hereinafter to be referred as the “Act of 1985”), which provides for permit selling up infrastructure for the National Waterways, etc. It is the case of the petitioner that similar provision has also been enacted under Section 14 of the Act of 2018 to regulate the activities of the Inland Water Operators. It is the case of the petitioner that similar provision has also been enacted under Section 14 of the Act of 2018 to regulate the activities of the Inland Water Operators. Since the Transport Operators shall be operated in the National Waterways, namely, on the river Brahmaputra and River Barak, it is clear that these two Acts operate on the same subject, however, any enactment pursuant to the legislative powers conferred on concurrent list requires the assent of the President but in the present case, the Act of 2018 received the assent of the Governor only on 15.11.2018, whereas the Presidential assent has not been obtained and, therefore, the Act of 2018 is liable to be declared as inoperative and ultra vires to Article 254(2) of the Constitution of India. 4. It is also the case of the petitioner that Section 14(2)(k) of the Act of 2018 stipulates “promote public private partnership, private participation and outsourcing for effective implementation of the Act of 2018”. However, looking to the fact that the Regulatory Authority constituted under the Act of 2018 is not owing any vessel or ship and is also not operating any vessel or ship, therefore, they cannot promote public-private partnership. The authorization given to the Regulatory Authority to make any provisions for private participation in public vessels or ships to operate in the Indian Waterways is illegal. It is the further case of the petitioner that the public vessels or ships are owned by the Inland Water Transport, Assam and the Directorate of Inland Water Transport, Assam provides ferry services through public ships or vessels. When these vessels or ships are not owned by the Regulatory Authority, they cannot make any provision to promote public-private partnership and cannot be authorized to make any provision for private participation in the public ferry services. In similar terms, the Regulatory Authority cannot be authorized to make any provision for outsourcing of public ferry services. 5. Reply to the writ petition is filed by the respondent Nos.1 & 2 and respondent Nos.3 & 4. The sum and substance of the reply filed by the respondent Nos.1, 2 & 3 is that the statement of the writ petitioner that the Act of 2018 overlaps the Act of 1985 is baseless. 5. Reply to the writ petition is filed by the respondent Nos.1 & 2 and respondent Nos.3 & 4. The sum and substance of the reply filed by the respondent Nos.1, 2 & 3 is that the statement of the writ petitioner that the Act of 2018 overlaps the Act of 1985 is baseless. It is contended that Section 14 of the Act of 1985 operates on the National Level right from notifying waterways as National or Inter State and in international traffic through international rivers and laying down broad parameters for navigation and safety standards, and inter alia, survey, investigation and maintenance of waterways, permit for infrastructure facilities, conservancy and demarcating navigable channels, training navigational meteorological information, only to advise the Central Government on Inland Waterways matters, hydrographic surveys and publication of river charts, assist the State Governments in formulation and implementation of Schemes, to provide consultancy services in India or abroad, conduct research on craft design and mechanization, lay down standards for classification of National Waterways. However, the Regulatory Authority constituted under the Act of 2018 is assigned to coordinate with the National Authority and set up standards in the local context under local geographical and socio-economic necessity. It is further contended that the Inland Vessels Act, 1921 defines roles of the Central and the State Governments and envisages creating designated authorities on both levels. It is the specific stand of the respondents that there is no actual conflict between the two statutes and Presidential assent under Article 254(2) of the Constitution of India is not required. It is further contended that the Act of 2018 operates under Entry 13 of List-II of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India and Entry 32 of List-III of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution empowers the State to legislate on matters related to Ferries and Inland Water Transport. It is further contended that the Presidential assent under Article 254(2) is only required if a State law conflicts with an existing Central Law on a concurrent subject. However, the Act of 2018 contemplates the Central framework by addressing State specific needs and, therefore, the same does not contradict any provisions of the Central Legislation and in absence of the Presidential assent, it is not rendered invalid or inoperative. However, the Act of 2018 contemplates the Central framework by addressing State specific needs and, therefore, the same does not contradict any provisions of the Central Legislation and in absence of the Presidential assent, it is not rendered invalid or inoperative. Reference is made to Section 61 of the Act of 2018 and it is contended that as per Section 61, the Act of 2018 is framed in addition to and not in derogation of any Act or law framed by the State or Union of India related to Inland Waterways, Forests, Wildlife or Environment already in force. Referring to sub-section (2) of Section 61, it is contended that the functions of the Regulatory Authority constituted under the Act of 2018 are to enable the Act in conjunction with the Inland Vessels Act, 1921, Indian Ports Act, 1908 and the Act of 1985. It is further contended that the Act of 2018 merely gives a formal structure for regulation and standardization and private participation without interference in the ownership of ships and vessels. It is aimed at encouraging collaboration to achieve objectives of modernization aligning with global best practices in public sector reforms and is consistent with State’s authority on matters concerning Inland Water Transport. It is further contended that the Regulatory Authority’s mandate is not operational but regulatory and it functions as a facilitator to encourage collaboration between the private and public entities for better service delivery while maintaining regulatory oversight. The promotion of private participation by public-private partnership and private partnership does not imply ownership or operational control. This is a recognized concept of public sector corporate governance where a Regulatory Authority is to maintain checks and balances in the public-private partnership and maintain overall uniform standards of service. It is lastly contended that there is no force in the challenge of the petitioner to the legality of the Act of 2018 and Section 14(2)(k) of the Act of 2018. 6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 7. The petitioner is claiming that the Act of 2018 is repugnant to the provisions of the Act of 1985. However, the petitioner has failed to make out a specific case pointing out the repugnancy between the Central and State Acts. 6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 7. The petitioner is claiming that the Act of 2018 is repugnant to the provisions of the Act of 1985. However, the petitioner has failed to make out a specific case pointing out the repugnancy between the Central and State Acts. The Act of 1985 is enacted for constitution of an authority for regulation and development of Inland Waterways for purpose of shipping and navigation and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. The functions of the Inland Waterways Authorities constituted under the Act of 1985 are enumerated in Section 14 of the Act of 1985. However, the Act of 2018 is enacted with the aim to provide for constitution of an Indian Water Transport Regulatory Authority to promote the development of safe, efficient, reliable and environmentally sound inland water transport and terminal services for the benefit of ferry users, freight consigners and water tourism in the State of Assam. The Assam Inland Water Transport Regulatory Authority constituted under the Act of 2018 is constituted to promote the development of safe, efficient, reliable and environmentally sound inland water transport and terminal services for the benefit of ferry users, freight consigners and water tourism in the State of Assam, particularly the matter connected therewith or incidental thereto. The functions of the Regulatory Authority constituted under the Act of 2018 are enumerated in Section 14 of the Act of 2018. 8. A comparison between Section 14 of the Act of 1985, which enumerates the functions of the Indian Waterways Authority of India constituted under the Act of 1985 and Section 14 of the Act of 2018 under which the Assam Inland Water Transport Regulatory Authority is constituted, reveals that as such there is no direct conflict between the functions of both the authorities constituted under the Act of 1985 and Act of 2018. 9. Mr. A. Dasgupta, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has also failed to indicate any repugnancy between the functions of both the authorities. Section 14 of the Act of 1985 operates on the National Level right from notifying waterways as National and Inter State and in international traffic through international rivers. 9. Mr. A. Dasgupta, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has also failed to indicate any repugnancy between the functions of both the authorities. Section 14 of the Act of 1985 operates on the National Level right from notifying waterways as National and Inter State and in international traffic through international rivers. It authorizes the authority constituted under Section 14 of the Act of 1985 to lay down broad parameters for navigation and safety standards, and inter alia, survey, investigation and maintenance of waterways, permit for infrastructure facilities, conservancy and demarcating navigable channels, training navigational meteorological information, only to advise the Central Government on Inland Waterways matters, hydrographic surveys and publication of river charts, assist the State Governments in formulation and implementation of the schemes, to provide consultancy services in India or abroad, conduct research on craft design and mechanization, lay down standards for classification of National Waterways. Whereas, the Regulatory Authority constituted under the Act of 2018 is to coordinate with the National Authority and set up standards in the local context under the local geographical and socio-economic necessity. 10. Both the authorities are operational in different fields and as such, we do not find any overlapping in the functions of both the authorities. Moreover, Section 61 of the Act of 2018 clearly provides that the provisions of the said Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force, relating to inland waterways, forests, wildlife, disaster management or environment protection. It further provides that the functions of the Regulatory Authority constituted under the Act of 2018 are to be enabled by the Act in conjunction with the Inland Vessels Act, 1921, Indian Ports Act, 1908 and the Act of 1985. As stated earlier, the petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the provisions of the Act of 2018 are in derogation of any Central Act or State Act. Hence, the said challenge of the petitioner is without any merit. 11. So far as the challenge of the petitioner to the provisions of Section 14(2)(k) of the Act of 2018 is concerned, we find that the same has also no merit. For the purpose of promoting public-private partnerships, private partnership and outsourcing for effective implementation of the Act of 2018, there is no need to own vessels or ships for the purpose of promotion of public-private partnerships. For the purpose of promoting public-private partnerships, private partnership and outsourcing for effective implementation of the Act of 2018, there is no need to own vessels or ships for the purpose of promotion of public-private partnerships. The authority can promote public-private partnership and private participation without being owner of any ship and vessel. To promote public-private participation, there is no necessity to own a public ferry services or to own any ship or vessel. It is also to be noticed that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate that how Section 14(2)(k) of the Act of 2018 discriminates against any individual or entity and, therefore, is being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 12. In view of the above, we are of the view that there is no force in this writ petition and the challenge of the petitioner to the validity of the Act of 2018, and in particular, to the provisions of Section 14(2)(k) of the Act of 2018 is without any force. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed.