KUMAR ARUN CHANDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the present writ application for quashing the order dated 31st October, 97 passed by the District Magistrate-cum-Licensing Authority, Manager (respondent No. 4) cancelling the settlement of Munger Raj Ferry Ghat made in favour of the petitioner for the calendar year, 1998 and 1999 as well as the fresh advertisement dated 15-11-97 issued for fresh auction of the said Ferry. A copy of the order dated 31-10-97 as well as a copy of the advertisement for auction has been annexed as Annexure-10 and 11 respectively to the writ application.

(2.) The District Magistrate-cum-Licensing authority (respondent No. 4) took steps for settlement of the aforesaid Ferry under the provision of the Bengal Ferry Act and in pursuance of an auction notice an auction was held on 30th December, 1996 and Kumar Arun Chandra Singh (respondent No. 8) offered the highest amount for Rs. 7,89,000/- and his bid was accepted and he was directed to deposit the amount within ten days failing which Ferry was to be settled with the second highest bidder, namely, the petitioner who offered Rs. 7,88,000/-. He only deposited a part of the bid amount and thereafter the period of depositing the amount was expended by the Commissioner of the Division even then the entire amount was not deposited. Therefore, the writ petitioner filed a petition before the Commissioner pointing out that the bid amount has not been deposited by the respondent No. 8 within the time allowed by him and then the Commissioner by an order dated 7-2-97 cancelled the settlement made in favour of the respondent No. 8 as he had not paid the entire amount and ordered for settlement of the aforesaid Ferry in favour of the petitioner being the next highest bidder. Thereafter, respondent No. 8 filed a petition before the Commissioner to stay the order which was rejected by him. In the meantime, the petitioner deposited bid money or one year and on 24-2-97 a parwana was issued in his favour and the petitioner started plying the Ferry.

(3.) On 13-3-97 respondent No. 8 filed a writ application being C.W.J.C. No. 2454/97 and the same was finally disposed of on 21-7-97, a copy of the said order has been annexed as Annexure-2 to the writ application. One of the points raised in the said application was that the vessel in question being plied by the petitioner was not of specified capacity. At this stage, it is to be mentioned that according to the terms of the advertisement the bidder was required to offer the two vessels. One vessel of 1000 passengers capacity and the other of 300 passengers capacity. This Court did not decide the aforesaid question and observed that it is always open to the licensing authority (respondent No. 4) to pass an appropriate order directing respondent No. 3 (petitioner) to substitute the existing Vessels-by Vessels of the required capacity in the event he fails to comply with such direction to take an appropriate action to the extent of cancelling the settlement. This Court further observed that while considering this aspect of the matter the respondent No. 4 District Magistrate, to keep in mind the safety and interest of the passengers that is public interest.