WP(C) 1484/2008 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE IA ANSARI Heard Mr. AS Choudhury, learned Senior counsel, assisted by Mr. R Ali, l earned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. AK Bhuyan, learned Standing counsel, Inland Water Transport Department, appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. Heard also Mr. M Dutta, learned Senior counsel, for the respondent No. 4. The petitioner as well as the respondent No. 4 had applied to the Direct or, Inland Water Transport Department, seeking direct settlement of Lengtichinga -Bortori Sontoshpur Commercial cargo-cum-passanger Ferry Service. By order, date d 18-02-2008, issued by the respondent No. 2, namely, Director, Inland Water Tra nsport Department, the ferry, in question, was settled in favour of the responde nt No. 4. Now, the petitioner has, with the help of the present application, mad e under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, come to this Court with the gr ievance that the offer of the petitioner for running the ferry, in question, was higher than that of the respondent No. 4 inasmuch as the petitioner’s bid was f or Rs. 36,501/- per year, whereas the offer made by the respondent No. 4 was Rs. 30,000/- per year and, hence, the said ferry ought to have been settled in favo ur of the petitioner. It was in the backdrop of the above facts that this writ petition was taken up f or consideration and in order to ascertain as to whether the ferry, in question, was a notified ferry, within the meaning of Section 4 of the Ferries Act, or no t, personal appearance of the respondent No. 2, namely, Director, Inland Water T ransport, Assam, was, on 12-05-2008, directed. Pursuant to the directions, so gi ven, respondent No. 2 has appeared today and has apprised this Court of the fact that the ferry, in question, is not a ferry in respect whereof any notification , in terms of Section 4 of the Ferries Act, stands published. In other words, th e ferry, in question, is not a notified ferry under the Ferries Act, 1878. Thoug h the respondent No. 2 has submitted that the process is on to get requisite not ification issued under Section 4 of the said Act. The fact of the matter, howeve r, remains that the ferry, in question, is not a notified ferry as required unde r the said Act. In the circumstances, indicated above, the State Government has no autho rity to operate or settle the ferry, in question. As the settlement made in favo ur of the respondent No. 4 is ex facie without jurisdiction, such settlement can not be allowed to survive. This would not, however, I must hasten to add, permit the State respondents to settle the ferry, in question, in favour of the petiti oner. Until the time the ferry, in question, is notified, the State Government c annot settle the ferry with any of the parties concerned. In this Court’s decisi ons in WP(C) No. 2807/2007 (Sri Bidhan Mudoi -vs- State of Assam and ors) and WP (C) No. 3933/2007 (Jadav Senapati -vs- State of Assam and ors), dated 08-01-2008 , it has been made clear that a public ferry, other than a Government ferry, cre ated under Section 4 stands vested in an Anchalik Panchayat within whose territo rial jurisdiction such a ferry falls and the Anchalik Panchayat has the freedom to settle, in terms of Section 106 of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994, such a publ ic ferry by inviting tenders. This apart, every Anchalik Panchayat or, for that matter, every individual is free to set up its own ferry, for, no legislation ex ists stopping an Anchalik Panchayat or any other individual from setting up a fe rry, which does not come within the specified distances of a public ferry notifi ed under Section 4 of the Ferries Act. In the light of the position of law as indicated above, no settlement of the ferry, in question, can be directed to be made in favour of the petitioner either. Considering, therefore, the matter in its entirety and in the interest of justic e, the impugned order of settlement, dated 18-02-2008, is hereby set aside and q uashed. The State respondents, particularly, the respondent No. 2, is hereby dir ected to refund the lease amount (i.e., Kist money) to the respondent No. 4, wit hin 10 days from today. With the above observations and directions, this writ petition shall sta nd disposed of. No order as to costs.