NARAYANPURGHATCHITOANINAIKSAMITTEE Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application along with C W J C No. 7440 of 1988 has been placed before as for considering the question as to whether the Full Bench decision of this court in Ranjlt singh v. State of Bihar, reported in 1987 P. L. J. R. 230 has correctly been oecided or not.

(2.) Having heard the counsel for the parties, we are satisfied that it is not necessary to decide the said question in C. W J. C No. 1146 of 1989 and, therefore, we are disposing of the matter by this judgment.

(3.) Petitioner claims itself to be a co-operative society. According to the petitioner, a policy decision was taken on 27-3-1971 by the State of Bihar to run Narayanpur Ghat Chitouni Ferry (hereinafter referred to as 'the said ferry) which is contained in Anncxure-1 to the writ application, Pursuant to the said policy decision 16 persons were appointed as Boatman. It appears that various authorities recommended in different manners as to whether the ferry in question should run departmentally or by settlement thereof upon holding auction an allegedly the state was incurring loss. On 26-12-1988, the Principal secretary to the Chief Minister Informed the Secretary, Department of Revenue and Land Reforms that the ferry in question be run by granting settlement. Pursuant to the said decision, the Collector, West Champaran, Bettish Published a notice dated 1912-1988 intimating the concerned persons for participating in the bid scheduled to be held on 31-12-1988 for settlement of the aforementioned ferry for a fixed tern of three months A settlement was made for a period of three months in favour of Respondent No 7. Admittedly at that point of time, services of Boatmen were terminated Petitioner thereafter filed an application on 10-1-1989 asking Respondent No 1 to see that the ferry be continued to be run by the State of Bihar. It appears further from the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the state that depise an opportunity granted to the petitioner-sociely to form a Society in order to enable the state to grant settlement in his favour, no step was taken pursuant thereto. It further appears that on 28-1-1989, the petitioner allegedly swore an affidavit before the Collector of the district to the effect that the settlement be made in favour of the said society. However, it appears that prior to making of the said offer, the auction in respect of the said ferry had already been held wherein respondent No 8 became the highest bidder.