RANJIT SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Issues of some significance which finally emerge for adjudication in this reference to the Full Bench may well be precisely formulated in the terms following : i) Whether a composite settlement of a public ferry declared under S.6, Bengal Ferries Act, 1885, and a ferry vested in the State under S.4, Bihar Land Reforms Act, is permissible in law ? ii) If so, whether such a composite settlement is to be governed by the provisions of the Bengal Ferries Act or by the purely administrative instructions for the settlement of sairats ? iii) Whether the Division Bench judgement in Ganesh Prasad v. State of Bihar, Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 277 of 1967 - decided on 18-8-1967 lays down the law correctly ?

(2.) The facts giving rise to the questions aforesaid may be noticed with the relative brevity. On 25-1-1985, public notice was issued under the authority of the District Magistrate of Bhojpur for a composite settlement of a group of ferry ghats including Telpa-Ekauna, Gangi Keshopur, Alekhitola and Sinha Bora Ghat, to be held by open public auction on 4-2-1985, for a term of three years from 1985-86 to 1987-88. The firm stand of the petitioner is that Telepa-Ekauna is a public ferry so declared under S.6 Bengal Ferries Act, 1885, (hereinafter called 'the Act'). It would, however, appear that the said public auction could not be held and 'fresh notices were issued for the settlement of the aforesaid ghats by a public auction on 20-2-1985, but apparently the terms were changed for only one year, i.e., 1-4-1985 to 31-3-1986. The petitioner avers that it was only on the 5th of March, 1985 that he came to know that the District Magistrate of Bhojpur had settled the aforesaid ferries in favour of respondents 4 and 5 for a period of three years and vide Case No. 9 of 1985-86 sent the same for approval of the learned Commissioner, Patna Division. Thereupon the petitioner filed a petition before the Commissioner aforesaid for the cancellation of the settlement, inter alia, on the ground that there was no sufficient public notice. The matter was heard at some length by the learned Commissioner and by his detailed order dated the 26th of March, 1985 (Annexure-3) running into twelve typed pages he concluded as under : "Furthermore, there is a possibility that in case this group of ferries is auctioned for the years 1986-87, they may fetch a much higher amount than the present bid. Hence the present settlement may be made for a period of one year only w.e.f. 1-4-1985." It is the petitioner's case that for the purposes of the settlement of public ferries the Commissioner is the final authority and he cannot abdicate his statutory functions in this regard, and under some erroneous impression he forwarded the case to the State Government for its approval that the proposed settlement should be finalised for a period of one year only. The petitioner even challenged the order of the Commissioner by way of Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 1721 of 1985, Ranjit Singh v. State of Bihar which, however, was dismissed as withdrawn on the 24th of April, 1985. However, later by a cryptic order dated the 10th of April, 1985 the State Government extended the term of the settlement of the ferries in question from one to three years - vide the impugned order contained in Annexure-5 - which when translated is in the following terms : "The Government, after considering the original records, has accorded approval to the settlement of the said ghats for a period of three years i.e. from 1-4-85 to 31-3-88 under special circumstances vide memo No. 948 of the Deputy Secretary to the Government, Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Bihar, Patna. Accordingly, issue notice to the contractor to obtain Parwana on executing a registered deed of agreement." Aggrieved by the above, the present writ petition has been filed for quashing the same and for upholding the order of the Commissioner sanctioning the settlement for a period of one year only.

(3.) In the counter-affidavits filed on behalf of the respondent State and the private respondents 4 and 5 the broad factual position is not seriously controverted: However, the stand sought to be taken on behalf of the private respondents is that the ferry in question is governed by the Sairat Manual and the provisions of the Act have little or no application to a composite settlement of this kind It is the stand that the State Government is fully empowered under the Sairat Manual to pass the impugned order (Annexure-5) for a period of three years. Both the State and the private respondents further attempt to raise a cloud that Telpa-Ekauna is not a public ferry under S.6 of the Act, and it is sought to be stated that the long standing admissions in this regard were due to a mistake of fact. A somewhat curious stand sought to be taken on behalf of the respondents is that though Telpa-Ekauna is not a public ferry under S.6 of the Act, it is nevertheless an undeclared public ferry which admittedly has since long been settled earlier by the local authorities of Chapra Municipality and since 1964 by the District Magistrate of Shahabad (now Bhojpur).