Bombay High Court
ARVIND MOHAN RAOversusMAHARASHTRA MARITIME BOARD
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The Regional Port Officer must pass a reasoned order for rectification of a vessel's Certificate of Registration, and the impugned orders are quashed.
Summary
The petition challenges two orders of the Regional Port Officer, Bandra Group of Ports, which corrected the Certificate of Registration of the vessel S.B. Avis Ark to reflect ownership by M/s TIK 158 Enterprises Pvt Ltd and its directors. The petitioner argues that the corrections were made without a reasoned order, violating Section 28 of the Inland Vessels Act, 2021, and that the officer lacked jurisdiction after a prior suspension order was set aside. The respondents contend that the corrections were purely administrative, that the petitioner had initially consented to the changes, and that recording reasons was not mandatory. The Court held that a reasoned order is essential for administrative decisions affecting civil rights and quashed the impugned orders, remitting the application back to the Regional Port Officer to rehear with an opportunity of hearing and to pass a reasoned order. Consequently, the petition was allowed and the parties were directed to appear before the officer on a specified date.
Issues considered
- Whether the Regional Port Officer was required to pass a reasoned order under Section 28 of the Inland Vessels Act, 2021 while rectifying the Certificate of Registration.
- Whether the rectification orders were within the officer's jurisdiction given the earlier suspension of the certificate had been set aside.
- Whether the absence of recorded reasons renders the rectification orders invalid.
Subjects
- Certificate of Registration
- Reasoned order
- Administrative law
- Inland Vessels Act
- Maritime jurisdiction
- Vessel ownership
- Quashing of order
Judgment
6-WP-1863-2026.DOC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 1863 OF 2026
Arvind Mohan Rao ..Petitioner
Versus
Maharashtra Maritime Board & Ors …Respondents
Mr. Rohan Savant, with Aagam Mehta, i/b Shivam Gawde, for the
Petitioner.
Mr. Nishigandh Patil, for Respondent Nos. 1 & 4.
Mr. Ankit Lohia, with Yash Momaya, Laveena Tejwani and Prasad
Mhamunkar, i/b NDB Law, for Respondent No.2.
CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J.
DATE : 17th AUGUST 2026
ORAL ORDER:
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
2. The challenge in this Petition is to the orders passed by the
Regional Port Officer, Bandra Group of Ports.
ARUN 3. By an order dated 14th June 2026 the Certificate of Registration,
RAMCHANDRA
SANKPAL
Digitally signed by
ARUN RAMCHANDRA
came to be initially corrected to show that the Vessel S.B. -Avis Ark is
SANKPAL
Date: 2026.08.19
09:23:04 +0530
registered in the name company, M/s TIK 158, Enterprises Private
Limited.
4. By another order dated 16th January 2026 the certificate was
further modified to show the names of the Petitioner and Respondent
ARS 1/5
6-WP-1863-2026.DOC
No.2, Ms Sandhaya Gupta; the directors of M/s TIK 158 Enterprises
Private Limited, as the owners of the said Vessel.
5. The said Vessel was initially registered as an inland vessel in the
name of Mr. Arvind Rao, Director of TIK 158 Enterprises Pvt Ltd.
6. The genesis of this Petition and the proceedings before the Port
Authority is in the disputes between the Petitioner and Respondent No.2
over the management of the affairs of TIK 158 Enterprises Pvt Ltd.
Multiple proceedings have ensued between the parties.
7. In view of the corrections carried out by Respondent No.1 in the
purported exercise of power to rectify the Certificate of Registration
under Section 28 of the Inland Vessels Act, 2021 (“the Act, 2021”),
Respondent No.1 was directed to file an Affidavit to indicate as to
whether Respondent No.1 has passed a reasoned order.
8. An Affidavit is filed by Mr. C.J. Lepande, Regional Port Officer,
Bandra Group of Ports to the effect that, after providing an opportunity
of hearing to the parties, the rectifications in the Certificate of
Registration were carried out. Evidently, no reasoned order was passed
by the Regional Port Officer.
9. Mr. Lohia, the learned Counsel for Respondent No.2, submitted
that the corrections carried out in the Certificate of Registration are
purely administrative in nature and it was not absolutely warranted to
record the reasons. In any event, Mr. Lohia would submit, the Petitioner
ARS 2/5
6-WP-1863-2026.DOC
himself had initiated the proposal to record the names of the company
as well as both the directors as the registered owners of the Vessel.
Respondent No.2 had acceded to the said proposal. Thereafter, the
Petitioner resiled from the said proposal. At any rate, since the rectified
Registration Certificate indicates the correct position, the Petitioner
cannot have grievance, urged Mr. Lohia.
10. Mr. Savant, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, submitted that
the said proposal was made at the stage when the Certificate of
Registration was suspended by the Port Authority. Subsequently, this
Court passed an order on 16th October 2025, whereby the said
suspension order was set aside. Thereafter, Respondent No.2 filed an
Application for rectification of the Certificate of Registration. No
grounds envisaged by the Section 28 of the Act, 2021 are made out.
Therefore, the order of the Regional Port Officer was sans jurisdiction.
In any event, it was incumbent upon the Regional Port Officer to pass a
reasoned order.
11. Without delving into the merits of the decision taken by the
Regional Port Officer, the Petition deserves to be allowed on the sole
ground that the Regional Port Officer has not recorded reasons in
support of his decisions in rectifying the Certificate of Registration. The
requirement of recording the reasons, even when a decision is in
exercise of administrative powers, is not an empty formality, where such
ARS 3/5
6-WP-1863-2026.DOC
decision has civil consequences. The reasons are the soul of the
decision. The legality, propriety and correctness of the decision cannot
be tested sans reasons.
12. Reliance placed by Mr. Savant on the decision in the case of
Kranti Associates Private Limited and Anr Vs Masood Ahmed Khan and
Ors,1 wherein it was inter alia enunciated that, “in India the judicial
trend has always been to record reasons, even in administrative
decisions, if such decisions affect anyone prejudicially”, appears to be
well-founded.
13. Initial registration was in the name of Petitioner albeit in the
capacity of the director of M/s TIK 158 Enterprises Pvt Ltd. If there
were justifiable grounds for carrying out corrections in the Certificate of
Registration, it was incumbent upon Respondent No.1 to pass a
reasoned order.
14. For the forgoing reasons, the Petition deserves to be allowed.
15. Hence, the following order:
:ORDER:
(i) The Petition stands allowed.
(ii) Impugned orders dated 14th January 2026 and 16th January
2026 stand quashed and set aside.
(iii) The Application dated 4th December 2025 filed by
Respondent No.2 stands remitted back to the Regional Port
1 (2010) 9 SCC 496.
ARS 4/5
6-WP-1863-2026.DOC
Officer to hear and decide the same afresh after providing an
opportunity of hearing to the parties.
(iv) The parties shall appear before the Regional Port Officer on
27th August 2026.
(v) The Regional Port Officer is requested to pass a reasoned
order in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from
27th August 2026.
(vi) All contentions of all the parties, including the contentions
of the Petitioner that the correction was sans jurisdiction, and
Respondent No. 2 that the Petitioner has given consent for
carrying out the corrections in the name of registered owner of
the Vessel and the impugned order dated 16 th January 2026,
reflects the correct position of ownership of the Vessel, are kept
open for consideration by the Regional Port officer.
(vii) Both the parties shall maintain decorum before the Regional
Port Officer at the time of hearing.
[N. J. JAMADAR, J.]
ARS 5/5
Checking your session…