THE MARITIME EDUCATION AND TRAINING INSTITUTES ASS vs THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

2026:MHC:1041
WA No. 481 of 2021 and
W.A.No.919 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON: 25-02-2026
PRONOUNCED ON: 12-03-2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE S. M. SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
WA No. 481 of 2021
and W.A.No 919 of 2020
and
CMP.No.1914 of 2021 and CMP.No.11346 of 2020
The Maritime Education And Training
Institutes Association
Rep By Its Secretary,
Regus Business Centre
No.136, Arcot Road, Shyamala Towers,
3rd Floor, Saligramam,
Chennai 600093.
Appellant (s) in W.A.No.481 of 2021
International Maritime Academy,
Represented by its Managing Director
J.Senthil Kumar,
41, Jamin Korattur, Pudhuchatram,
Chennai – 600 124.
Appellant(s) in W.A.No.919 of 2020
Vs
1. The Government Of India
Rep By Its Secretary,
Ministry Of Shipping
Transport Bhawan, Sansadmarg
New Delhi 110001.
1/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 03:50:33 pm )

WA No. 481 of 2021 and
W.A.No.919 of 2020
2.The Directorate General Of Shipping
Rep By The Assistant Director General
Of Shipping
9th Floor Beta Building, I T
hink Techno Campus Kanjumarg (east)
Mumbai 400042.
Respondent(s) in both W.A.s
Common Prayer
Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act, praying to
SET ASIDE the Orders dated 18.08.2020 in Writ Petition Nos.9119 and 9050 of
2020 on the file of this Honble Court and Allow the Writ Petition.
For Appellant(s):
in W.A.No.481 of
2021
Mr.P.Godson Swaminath
for M/s.Isaac Chambers
For Appellant(s):
in W.A.No.919 of
2020
Mr.B.Jegannath
for Mr.Abishek Jenasenan
For Respondent(s): M/s.B.Sudhir Kumar
In both W.As
For R1 And R2
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Judgement of the Court was made by C.Kumarappan J.)
The present Writ Appeals filed against the order of the learned Single
Judge dated 18.08.2020 in WP.No.9050 & 9119 of 2020. The appellants and the
respondents are arrayed as the petitioners and the respondents before the Writ
Court.
2/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 03:50:33 pm )

WA No. 481 of 2021 and
W.A.No.919 of 2020
2.For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to according to
their litigative status before the Writ Court.
3 (a).The brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of the present
Writ Appeals are that the Members of the Petitioners have been imparting
maritime courses, which are termed as “pre-sea”’ courses. The duration of
nd
courses are ranging between six months to four years. The 2 respondent is the
regulatory body, who used to grant approval for the Institution for conducting
courses. While so, they have issued a Circular dated 24.10.2019, directing the
institution to admit students only when there is a secured place for an on board
nd
training in a Shipping Company. In this regard, the 2 respondent also directed
the Institution to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding with the Shipping
Companies.
(b) The above circular was challenged before this Court in a batch of writ
petition in WP.No.40370 of 2016. Wherein this Court vide order dated
nd
09.09.2019 has gone into the authority of the 2 respondent and the validity of
nd
the conditions imposed in the Circular, ultimately this Court has held that the 2
respondent has authority to regulate the Maritime education and are competent
to issue circulars. However, considering certain onerous responsibility reposed
3/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 03:50:33 pm )

WA No. 481 of 2021 and
W.A.No.919 of 2020
upon the Educational Institutions, Court held that the compulsory placement in
a shipping Company for a specified period is unconstitutional and ultra vires,
and also held that the conditions to enter into the Memorandum of
Understanding with the Shipping Company is onerous. Accordingly, such
condition was ordered to be struck down.
nd
(c) In pursuance to the above order, the 2 respondent has issued the
impugned Circular on 24.04.2020 and a consequential circular dated 27.05.2020
(hereinafter called impugned circulars). The learned Single Judge, having
considered the earlier order passed by this Court in batch of Writ Petitions in
WP.No.40370 of 2016 dated 09.09.2019 (hereinafter called batch of writ
petitions) and upon the factum that the Circulars are in tune with the
International Convention on Standards of Training Certification and Watch
Keeping for Seafarers [STCW], 1978 [hereinafter referred to as STCW code]
dismissed the writ petition by approving the circular. Aggrieved with the same,
the present Writ Appeal is filed.
4.Heard Mr.P.Godson Swaminath, learned counsel for the appellant in
W.A.No.481 of 2021 and Mr.B.Jegannath, learned counsel for the appellant in
W.A.No.919 of 2020 and Mr.B.Sudhir Kumar, learned counsel for the
4/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 03:50:33 pm )

WA No. 481 of 2021 and
W.A.No.919 of 2020
respondents.
5.The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that, in
WP.No.40370 of 2016, this Court having held that the condition compelling the
Institution to give on-board training, and to arrange a placement is onerous and
ultravires, ignoring such direction, the present impugned circulars were issued
by the respondent with the very same condition. Therefore, contended that the
said circular is to be interfered with. It is their further submission that, the
learned Single Judge has not followed the direction of the earlier co-equal
Bench, which is nothing but judicial indiscipline, as held by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in P.Suseela and others Vs. University Grants Commission and
others reported in (2015) 8 SCC 129 . It is their further submission that they
have been all along giving only pre-sea training, therefore, any stipulation in
contravention to the earlier order of this Court, which curtail the liberty of the
student to choose the shipping company of their choice is illegal. It is their
further contention that the learned Single Judge has failed to consider the
factum of limited number of shipping companies while comparing to the
number of colleges. Hence, prayed to allow the Writ Appeal.
5/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 03:50:33 pm )

WA No. 481 of 2021 and
W.A.No.919 of 2020
6. Per contra, the said contention was stoutly objected by the learned
counsel for the respondents, and would contend that the order of the learned
Single Judge is in conformity with the order of the earlier co-equal Bench in a
batch of writ petitions, and that the impugned circulars were issued in tune with
the orders of this Court. Hence, there are no grounds to interfere with the
impugned order. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that, there
are no judicial indiscipline in the impugned order as the learned Single Judge
has followed the precedents and had categorically recorded that the impugned
circulars are not in contravention to the order of earlier batch of writ petitions.
Hence, prayed to dismiss the Writ Appal.
7.We have given our anxious consideration to either side submissions.
8.The main thrust of the petitioners’ argument is that, the maritime
institution would only give pre-sea training, and after the completion of pre-sea
training, it is for the student to choose a shipping company for their onboard
training. Their further argument is that, when the similar circular was issued at
the earlier point of time, this Court set aside the portion of the circular inasmuch
as relating to the condition imposed upon the institution to arrange for an on-
6/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 03:50:33 pm )

WA No. 481 of 2021 and
W.A.No.919 of 2020
board training, but still such condition was imposed in the impugned circulars.
9.Let us consider the above submission in the backdrop of the judgment
rendered by this Court in batch of writ petitions qua WP.No.40370 of 2016.
According to the above order, the learned Single Judge has recorded that the
clause which mandated on-board training with a compulsory tie up with the
shipping companies, and the students placement was held ultra vires and struck
nd
down. However, in the very same order, there is a direction that the 2
respondent has to come out with the composite circular based on International
Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watch Keeping for
Seafarers (STCW), 1978, Merchant Shipping (STCW) Rules 2014 and the
Merchant Shipping (Continuous Discharge Certificate-cum Seafarers Identity
nd
Document) Rules 2017. It was further directed the 2 respondent to properly
guide the Maritime Institutes to conduct training programmes in consonance
with the Act and Rules, as indicated above and direction was given to comply
the above order within four months.
10. For ready reference, this Court deems it appropriate to extract the
findings of the learned Single Judge in the batch of writ petitions qua
7/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 03:50:33 pm )

WA No. 481 of 2021 and
W.A.No.919 of 2020
WP.NO.40370 of 2016. The same is as follows:-
“92.To sum up the writ petitions are disposed of with the following
findings and directions:-
(i)The Director General of Shipping is the authority vested with
absolute power to regulate all training programmes leading to
examinations for grant of certificates;
(ii)As far as Diplomas, Degrees and Post Graduate Diplomas
offered by the Institutes affiliated to Universities, the policy of the
Central Government binds the Universities and the Institutes
affiliated to the Universities. DGS power to prescribe minimum
eligibility marks for admission in Diploma and degree courses
flows from Entry 25 in List I of Schedule VII of the Constitution of
India.
(iii)Any order or regulation issued by DGS shall be with the object
to enhance the quality of training and standard of education and
not detrimental to the object;
(iv)MoU with Shipping company for onboard training for specified
number of candidates and restricting the admission to that specified
number alone is an onerous condition;
(v)Continuation of approval based on placement within specified
period is unconstitutional and ultra vires and
(vi)In superstition of orders and training circulars, the DGS is
directed to frame a composite regulation for institutes offering
Marine Education and training within four months from the date of
this order. Till such time, except clauses regarding tie up for on
8/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 03:50:33 pm )

WA No. 481 of 2021 and
W.A.No.919 of 2020
board training and placement which is struck down as
unconstitutional all other clauses in the orders and circulars shall
be in force.”
11.Now the only grievance of the petitioners is that, even as per the
present circular, the format of the training consists of both training qua pre-sea
course and ship board training, whereas the ship board/on board training was set
aside in the earlier WP.No.40370 of 2016. Now let us see, whether the
stipulation in the earlier circular regarding on-board training is totally set aside
in the order of the batch of writ petitions. In this connection, it is appropriate to
nd
read clause 6 (stated supra), wherein it has directed the 2 respondent to frame a
composite regulation, “except the clauses regarding tie up for on-board
training and placement.” Therefore, what was struck down by the earlier
round of litigation is, the condition regarding a tie up with shipping company,
and for the placement of the candidate.
12. However, while looking at the present impugned circular, it only
directs the institutes to give ship board/on board training. In the condition it is
conspicuously absent about a tie up with shipping company. The impugned
circulars only states that, it is for the institutes to find out shipping company
9/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 03:50:33 pm )

WA No. 481 of 2021 and
W.A.No.919 of 2020
according to their choice so as to give suitable training as mandated under the
impugned Circulars qua dated 24.04.2020 and the circular dated 27.05.2020.
13. The learned Single Judge, in his order, has categorically distinguished
this aspects and in paragraph 18 of the judgement and has recorded that the new
nd
guidelines prescribed by the 2 respondent is in consonance with the STCW
code and STCW Rules, 2014, as ordered by this Court in earlier batch of writ
petitions qua WP.No.40370 of 2016. In the impugned order, the learned Single
Judge correctly recorded in paragraph 20 that, just because the institution may
find difficult to provide an on-board training, that by itself cannot be a ground to
interfere with the circular, and more specifically, the learned Single Judge has
rightly distinguished in paragraph 6 as follows:-
“6 It is clear from the above order that this Court had
recognised the authority of the 2nd respondent to regulate all
training programmes and granting of Certificates and this Court
interfered with the Circular only insofar as imposing the condition of
entering into an MOU with the Shipping Company for on-board
training which was made as a pre-requisite for admission of
candidates. This Court found that the said condition is onerous. This
nd
Court also directed the 2 respondent to frame a composite
Regulation for all Institutes offering Maritime education and training
10/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 03:50:33 pm )

WA No. 481 of 2021 and
W.A.No.919 of 2020
within a period of four months from the date of the order. This Court
also made clear that except the clauses regarding entering into an
MOU for on-board training and placement, all the other clauses in
the Orders and Circulars were held to be valid and in force.”
14.On harmonious reading of the above observation, it is clear that this
Court in earlier batch of writ petitions has only held that the condition of
entering the Memorandum of Understanding with shipping companies is
nd
onerous. But, in the case in hand, the 2 respondent has given time to ensure
that the candidates are guaranteed to have an on-board training as stipulated in
the circular, and as rightly observed by the learned Single Judge, such condition
is not onerous one.
15. Further more, the petitioners could not make out any case to establish
that these circulars are in contravention to the STCW code. Though the learned
counsel for the petitioners would contend that the present order is in
contravention to the order of the earlier batch of writ petitions, as discussed
hereinabove, the learned Single Judge has not deviated from the order of the
earlier batch of writ petitions, which factum was captured in paragraph 6 of the
impugned order. It is pertinent to mention that in the impugned circulars, such
11/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 03:50:33 pm )

WA No. 481 of 2021 and
W.A.No.919 of 2020
condition was not imposed and there is only a simple direction to arrange for an
on-board training to the students. In view of our above discussion, we
absolutely do not find any ground to interfere with the order of the learned
Single Judge.
16.In the result, the Writ Appeals stand dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected MPs are also closed.
(S.M.SUBRAMANIAM J.)(C.KUMARAPPAN J.)
12-03-2026
Index:Yes
Speaking order
Internet:Yes
Neutral Citation:Yes
kmi
12/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 03:50:33 pm )

WA No. 481 of 2021 and
W.A.No.919 of 2020
To
1.The Government Of India
Rep By Its Secretary,
Ministry Of Shipping
Transport Bhawan,
Sansadmarg New Delhi 110001.
2.The Directorate General Of Shipping
Rep By The Assistant Director General
Of Shipping 9th Floor Beta Building, I
Think Techno Campus
Kanjumarg (east) Mumbai 400042.
13/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 03:50:33 pm )

WA No. 481 of 2021 and
W.A.No.919 of 2020
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM J.
AND
C.KUMARAPPAN J.
kmi
Pre-Delivery Judgment
in WA No. 481 of 2021
and W.A.No 919 of 2020
12-03-2026
14/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 03:50:33 pm )