S.B.Sinha, J - (1.) This application is directed against a notice dated 7th May, 1993 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Sahebganj wereby and whereunder tenders have been invited from the intending bidder for taking setllement of Sahebganj Manihari Group of Public Ferry which is a public ferry within the meaning of the provisions of Bengal Ferries Act 1885.
(2.) The fact of the matter lies in a very narrow compass. Petitioner No. 1 is a society registered under the Bihar Co-operative Societies Act. The Ghats in-question had been settled with the petitioners for the year 1991-92. It is accepted that previously there was 180 different ghats. One Jai Manga) Singh filed a writ petition in this court being C. W. J. C. 6175/90 wherein inter alia it was contended that the settlement of Ghats were going to be made without fixing the limits thereof. A Division Bench of this Court by order dated 20th September, 1980 dismissed the said writ application directing the petitioner to appear before the Deputy Commissioner, Sahebganj so as to get the limits of the Ferries in-question defined before the auction was held. Another writ application was filed by one Damodar Pd. Singh raising the same question which was registered as C. W. J. C. 1494/91. By an order dated 9-4-1991 the said writ application was also disposed of in view of the submissions made by the counsel for the State that steps have already been taken to renotify the limits of the ferries.
(3.) However, another writ application was filed by Damodar Prasad Singh as allegedly the direction of this Court in C. W. J. C 1494 of 1991 were not complied with being C.W.J. No. 3838 of 1991. In that writ application the petitioner was added as respondent No. 4. By a judgment dated 7th May, 1992, a Division Bench of this Court while allowing the said writ application held as follows :- "If the Act requires the State Govt to define the limits of the public ferries, there is no reason why the State Government should not define the limits. For one reason or the other the Govt, has been dragging its feet. No doubt the demarcation of the limits of each individual public ferry (sic) may involve considerable time and affort, but that should have been done in view of earlier orders of this Court and the order of the Commissioner as contained in Annexure-14 of the writ application. We are informed that so far this has not been done. It is difficult to imagine how an intending settlees can bid at a public auction or take the settlement otherwise unless all the different ferries are defined by reference to their limits. In the absence of such definition of limits there may be disputes inter se between the different lessees of public ferries. At the same time other persons in the locality who are prohibited from maintaining a private ferry within two miles from the limits of public ferries may be penalised for committing breach of Section 16 of the Act without even fur nishing the limits of the public ferries. I have, therefore, no doubt that the limits of public ferries which are sought to be settled separately must first be clearly defined in accordance with the provisions of the Act before an auction is held, or before such public ferries are sought to be leased out to any person or body otherwise. I, therefore, direct the State of Bihar to first define the limits of the public ferries in question, and notify the definition in terms of Section 6 of the Act. Only thereafter the respondent shall take steps either to hold public auction for leasing out such public ferries, or settle the same in accordance with the provisions to Section 9 of the Act, If a settlement is sought to be made under the proviso to Section 9 of the Act. in addition to the definition of the limits, the terms and conditions on which such settlements are to be made must also be notified by the State Govt. before the settlement is made, I direct the respondents not to hold auction of the public ferries in question except after complying with the direction contained in this order." 3. A copy of the said judgment is contained in Annexure-5 to the writ application and has also been reported in 1993 (1) PLJR 194.;