High Court · 2012

Both the writ petitions being inter connected have been heard together a nd are being disposed of by this common order. While in the first writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 3934/2012 the prayer of the petitioner is to set aside and quash Annexures-2 and 4 notification and t ender notice dated 23.12.2011 and 26.04.2012 respectively, in the second writ p etition, namely W.P.(C) No. 4138/2012, the prayer made is for a direction to the respondents to prevent the respondent No. 6 who is the writ petitioner in W.P.( C) No. 3934/2012 from operating the particular Ferry service. Further challenge made in the writ petition is to set aside and quash the order dated 30.06.2012 i ssued by Rupshi Anchalik Panchayat by which such ferry service has been settled with the respondent No. 6, i.e. the writ petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 3934/2012. While entertaining the writ petition, this Court was inclined to pass an interim order directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue wit h the operation of the particular Ferry service, namely Kararkur Showpur Baki Na dirpar Ghat pursuant to the settlement order dated 30.06.2012. The petitioner involved in the second writ petition, i.e. W.P.(C) No. 41 38/2012, has filed an application being Misc. Case No. 2635/2012 seeking vacatio n of the said interim order. I have heard Mr. A. Matin, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in the first writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 3934/2012 as well as Mr. D. Das, le arned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr. S. Ali, learned counsel appearing for the peti tioner in the second writ petition, i.e. W.P.(C) No. 4238/2012. I have also hear d Mr. Bhuyan, learned SC, Inland Water Transport Department appearing in both th e writ petitions. I have also considered the entire materials on record. The matter relates to settlement of Kararkur Showpur Baki Nadirpar Ghat for which Anchalik Panchayat had issued NIT on 04.05.2012. Pursuant to the said NIT, the particular Par Ghat was settled with the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 3934 /2012. The said settlement order issued by the Anchalik Panchayat is dated 30.06 .2012. When the aforesaid development in the Anchalik Panchayat was going on, t he Govt. of Assam in the Inland Water Transport Department also issued NIT on 26 .04.2012 for settlement of the same Par Ghat. Pursuant to the said process, the petitioner involved in the second writ petition, i.e. W.P.(C) No. 4138/2012, was settled with the same on 10.08.2012. When the matter rested thus, the first wri t petition was filed making a grievance against such settlement with the petitio ner in the second writ petition. It has been contended in the writ petition that such settlement was illegal inasmuch as the petitioner involved in the said wri t petition having already been settled with the Par Ghat, the Inland Water Trans port Department had no authority to initiate simultaneous process for settlement of the same Par Ghat by issuing NIT on 26.04.2012. It will be pertinent to mention at this stage that by Anenxure-2 notific ation dated 23.12.2011 the State Govt. in the Transport Department declared the particular Par Ghat as Public Ferry Ghat. The said notification was published a longwith some other notifications in the official Gazatte on 29.08.2012. Mr. Matin, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in the first wri t petition, submits that Inland Water Transport Department could not have issue d NIT on 26.04.2012 with consequential settlement of the Par Ghat with the petit ioner in the second writ petition on 10.08.2012 inasmuch as the said Par Ghat wh ich was declared to be a Public Ferry Ghat was notified in the official Gazatte only on 28.09.2012. He submits that in view of the said position, there was noth ing wrong in settling the Par Ghat with the petitioner in the first writ petitio n by the Anchalik Panchayat which had the jurisdiction to settle the same till s uch time the declaration was made and published in the official Gazatte on 29.08 .2012. Countering the above argument, both Mr. Das, learned counsel appearing f or the petitioner in the second writ petition and Mr. Bhuyan, learned SC, Inland Water Transport Department, submit that the Anchalik Panchayat does not have an y jurisdiction to settle the Par Ghat of its own after the aforesaid notificatio n dated 23.12.2011 declaring the Par Ghat as Public Ferry Ghat conferring jurisd iction on the Inland Water Transport Department. They submit that publication of the said notification on 23.12.2011 in the official Gazatte was inconsequential so far as the decision of the Govt. in the particular department conveyed by th e said notification dated 23.12.2011 is concerned. Admittedly the notification dated 23.12.2011 declaring the particular Par Ghat a s Public Ferry was in existence when the Anchalik Panchayat issued the NIT on 04 .05.2012 pursuant to which settlement was made in favour of the petitioner invol ved in the first writ petition. As per the provision of Section 4 of Northern In dian Ferries Act, 1878, the State Govt. is empowered to declare a particular Fer ry Ghat to be Public Ferry etc. Every such declaration is to be made by notifica tion in the official Gazatte. In the instant case, the notification declaring the Par Ghat as Public Ferry was issued on 23.12.2011. Said notification alongwith some other notificat ions has been published in the official Gazattee on 29.08.2012. It is the intent ion of the Govt. with which we are concerned. The intention to declare the Par G hat as Public Ferry was conveyed by the notification dated 23.12.2011. In my con sidered view, late publication of the said intention/ notification in the offici al Gazatte on 29.08.2012 is inconsequential. It was pursuant to the said notifi cation dated 23.12.2011, Inland Water Transport Department issued NIT on 26.04.2 012 and made consequential settlement on 10.08.2012 with the petitioner involved in the second writ petition. Thus, the process initiated by the Inland Water Tr ansport Department was prior to the process initiated by the Anchalik Panchayat. In view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that the Anchalik P anchayat could not have settled the Par Ghat with the petitioner involved in the first writ petition, same being a Public Ferry within the jurisdiction of Inlan d Water Transport Department. Consequently the settlement made by the Inland Wat er Transport Department is upheld. Both the writ petitions are answered in the above manner. Interim order operating in this proceeding stands vacated. There shall be no order as to costs .