NASHIRUDDIN AHMED Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the legality of the order of settlement of the Ferry-in-question in favour of respondent No. 4 Shri Kashme AH.

(2.) According to the petitioner, Nashiruddin Ahmed, the Ferry Ghat-in-question, Air Kata Mairakuchi Namchala to Dhubri Parghat Ferry far the year 1997-98 by the Jamadarhat Anchalik Panchayat for the total amount of Rs. 3,350/-. The petitioner deposited all the kist money at a time and a Lease deed was executed in his favour settling the said Ferry for the period 1.7.97 to 30.6.98. The petitioner further stated that he was prevented from operating the lease and interferred with in collection of tolls by the authorities, as a result off which he had to suffer severe loss; but he was assured by the authority to be given extension of the lease. While the petitioner was expecting extension of the lease period, art that time he came to know that an arrangement was made for direct settlement with the respondent No. 4, by the other respondents. The petitioner apprehending direct settlement of the said Ferry with respondent No. 4, rushed to this Court and this Court by its order dated 7.10.98, issued notice of motion and in the interim, directed the respondents not to settle the Ferry-in- question with respondent No. 4 or with any other person. The respondent No. 4 appeared in court and submitted his affidavit, in the affidavit, respondent No. 4 stated that Jamadarhat AnchalikPanchayat duly invited tenders for settlement of Haats/Ghats under its jurisdiction including the Airkata- Moirakuchi Namchala to Dhubrii Ghat. According to the respondent No. 4, a number of parties participated in the tender and thereafter settlement of the Ferry-ghat-in question was made in favour of respondent No. 4 for the period 16.9.98 to 30th June, 1999 for an amount of Rs. 2110/- and by virtue of the settlement order, respondent No. 4 took charge of the Ferry-ghat and operated the same. Respondent No. 4, further stated about the institution of a Suit by the petitioner before the Civil Judge (Sr Division), Dhubri, in respect Airkata-Moirakuchi Nanrichala to Dhubri Ferry-ghat. Respondent No. 4 denied the allegation that the Ferry-ghat in question was settled with him illegally and slated that the settlement was made with him by the Panchayat Authority as per law.

(3.) Mr. A B Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner, firstly submitted that the settlement which made in favour of respondent No. 4, was in fact made by the Block Development Officer, Jamdarhat Block, who was is not the competent authority to settle the Ferry-ghat since under the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994, it is only the Anchalik Panchayats who can settle the Hats/Ghats within its jurisdiction with a person/party. Mr Choudhury, the learned counsel, 'thereafter submitted that in the absence of wide publicity of the notification inviting tenders, the impugned settlement order cannot be sustained, public interest demanded a wide circulation/publicity of the tender notice and in the absence of such publicity of the notice, the entire process of settlement was vitiated, submitted Mr. Choudhury, the learned counsel for the petitioner.