WP(C) 2847/2008 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE I A ANSARI JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL) In view of the fact that the issues involved, in these three writ petitions, are inextricably connected with each other and the decision, in any of these writ p etitions, would have a bearing on the outcome of the other writ petitions, all t hese writ petitions, as sought for, and agreed to, by the learned counsel for th e parties, have been taken up together for the purpose of final disposal at the stage of admission. I have accordingly heard the learned counsel for the parties concerned. 2. All these three writ petitions are in the nature of offshoot of a contro versy, which had arisen as a result of operation of two different ferries, one b y the Inland Water Transport Department (in short, ’the IWTD’) and the other by Mandia Anchalik Panchayat. 3. The petitioner, in WP(C) No. 2063/2008, namely, Safiqul Hoque, was the p erson in whose favour the settlement of Sonapur Kadang Beki Par Ghat had been gr anted by Executive Officer/Secretary of the Mandia Anchalik Panchayat, for a per iod of one year, which was to end on 30-06-2008. After this petitioner had been granted settlement, aforesaid, by the said Panchayat, the IWTD granted settlemen t of the said ferry ghat in favour of another person. In view of the fact that t he petitioner had become unable to operate the said ferry ghat freely and in ter ms of the settlement granted by the said Panchayat, the petitioner challenged, b y way of a writ petition, the settlement, which the IWTD had made in favour of t he respondent in WP(C) No. 4400/2007. This writ petition was taken up along with two other writ petitions, namely, WP(C) Nos. 4197/07 and 5750/2007 by this Cour t and by order, dated 10-01-2008, the Court disposed of the writ petition with d irection to the Chief Secretary and/or Additional Chief Secretary, Government of Assam, to resolve the issue. The relevant observations and directions read as u nder: Considering the above controversy, it will be appropriate for the Govt. of Assa m to resolve the issue once for all. The Chief Secretary and/or Additional Chief Secretary, Govt. of Assam shall take on record the necessary materials and shal l pass appropriate order considering the relevant factors and also the discussio ns made above. 4. By order, dated 06-05-2008, the Commissioner of Lower Assam Division, Go vernment of Assam, concluded that the said ferry ghat fall within the jurisdicti on of Mandia Anchalik Panchayat and it is the said Panchayat, which has the juri sdiction to make settlement of the said ferry ghat. Having concluded thus, the C ommissioner further pointed out that the petitioner in WP(C) No. 4400/2007, name ly, Md. Safiqul Hoque (i.e., the petitioner in WP(C) No. 2063/2008), had been se ttled with the ferry for the year 2007-08 at a value of Rs. 61,751/-, but the pe titioner had been deprived of his right to operate the ferry, because of the con troversy, which had arisen as a result of operation of another ferry by the IWTD and, hence, the petitioner shall be compensated by granting extension of the se ttlement, which had been made, in his favour, by the said Panchayat. 5. Notwithstanding the fact that by order, dated 06-05-2008, aforementioned , the said Panchayat had been directed to extend the period of settlement of the petitioner in WP(C) No. 4400/2007, namely, Safiqul Hoque (i.e., the petitioner in WP(C) No. 2063/2008), the said Panchayat issued a tender notice, on 03-05-200 8, inviting tenders for granting new settlement of the said ferry ghat. The said Safiqul Hoque, (i.e., the petitioner in WP(C) No. 2630/2008), then, came to thi s Court with a writ petition seeking directions to be given to the said Panchaya t to extend, in the light of the directions given in the order, dated 06-05-2008 , aforementioned, which was passed by the Commissioner, Lower Assam Division, Gu wahati, the period of settlement for the purpose of compensating the loss, which he had incurred. 6. The petitioner, Ali Akbar, whose writ petition has given rise to WP(C) N o. 2847/2008, is one of the tenderers, who had participated in the said tender p rocess, and he has put to challenge, in WP(C) No. 2847/2008, the order, dated 06 -05-2008, aforesaid passed by the Commissioner, whereby a direction had been giv en to the said Panchayat to extend the period of settlement. By filing yet anot her writ petition, which has given rise to WP(C) No. 3448/2008, Ali Akbar (i.e., the petitioner in WP(C) No. 2847/2008), has also sought for setting aside and q uashing the order, dated 30.06.2008, passed by the Executive Officer, Mandia Anc halik Panchayat, settling, by way of compensation, the said ghat in favour of Sa fiqul Hoque and to settle the said ghat in terms of the tender process, which ha s been initiated by tender notice, dated 03-05-2008, aforementioned. Apart from the question as to whether the Commissioner, Lower Assam Division, had the juris diction to direct the said Panchayat to extend the period of settlement of Safiq ul Haue in order to compensate the loss, which Safiqul Hoque had suffered, what needs to be pointed out is that while passing the order, dated 10-01-2008, dispo sing the said three writ petitions, namely, WP(C) No. 4197/2007, 4400/07 and 575 0/2007, this Court had given no direction to the Commissioner to decide the ques tion of compensation, what had been directed was to resolve the dispute as to wh ether the said ferry ghat could be settled by the said Panchayat or by IWTD. Whe n the Commissioner had come to the conclusion that the said ferry ghat could hav e been legally settled only by the said Panchayat, no further direction, as rega rds the extension of the period of settlement of Safiqul Hoque, (i.e., the petit ioner in WP(C) No. 2063/2008, who is also the petitioner in WP(C) No. 2063/2008) , could have been passed. 7. Coupled with the above, the settlement, in the present case, has been ma de by an Anchalik Panchayat in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 105 of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994, and the Rules framed thereunder. Neither the Ass am Panchayat Act, 1994, nor the Rules framed thereunder make provisions for exte nsion of the period of settlement for the purpose of enabling a lessee or a sett lement holder of a ferry ghat to recover the loss, which he may have incurred af ter he had received the settlement. In fact, in Kosheswar Bharali vs. State of A ssam, reported in (2000) 3 GLT 528, it was urged before this Court that since th e Assam Panchayat Act, 1994, is silent as regards extension of settlement of a f erry, the Court should take an equitable view and hold that the authority concer ned have the power to grant extension in appropriate cases, where the lessee suf fers loss during the period of settlement. Rejecting the submissions, so made, t he Court observed and held as follows: 5. The reason for rejecting the prayer for extension of the petitioner, inter a lia, therefore, is that there is no provision in the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994 f or extension of settlement of hat/ghat/ferries. Section 105(1) of the Assam Anc hayat Act, 1994, provides that all hats within the territorial jurisdiction of A nchalik Panchayat shall be settled in the manner prescribed for a period coninci ding with and not exceeding one Panchayat financial year by inviting tenders at the office of the Anchalik Panchayat. Similarly, Section 106(1) of the Assam Pa nchayat Act, 1994 stated that all public ferries, other than Government ferries within the territorial jurisdiction of the Anchalik Panchayat shall be settled i n the manner prescribed for a period coinciding with and not exceeding one Panch ayat financial year by inviting tenders at the office of the Anchalik Panchayat by its President. On a reading of different provisions of Sections 105 and 106 of the said Act, it appears that there is no provision for extension of settleme nt either of hats or of public ferries. 6. Mr. Hazarika, however, submitted that since the said two sections of the Assa m Panchayat Act, 1994, are silent with regard to extension of settlement of hat or ferry, the Court should take an equitable view and hold that the authorities have the power to grant extension in appropriate cases where the lessee suffers loss during the period of settlement. I am unable to accept the said submission of Mr. Hazarika as both Sections 105 and 106 of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994, state that the settlement of hat or public ferry is not to exceed one Panchayat financial year and further state that such settlement has to be made by inviting tenders. Thus, the express provisions of Section 105 and 106 of the Assam Panc hayat Act, 1994 prohibited any extension or settlement beyond the period of one Panchayat financial year and further mandate that any settlement has to be made by inviting tenders. Therefore, I hold that no extension can be granted in resp ect of a public ferry settled under Section 106 of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994 , by inviting tenders and that after a period of settlement of one year such pub lic ferry can only be settled afresh by inviting tenders and not otherwise. (emphasis added) 8. From what have been observed and concluded above, what becomes clear is that when there is no provision made in the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994, for grant ing extension of the period of settlement and when the said Act makes it clear t hat the settlement shall be for one Panchayat financial year, it is not possible for a Panchayat to extend the period of settlement, even though the settlement holder or lessee might have sustained loss. Had the legislature intended making such provisions, it could have done so as have been done in the cases of fisheri es. I, therefore, see no reason to take a view different from what has been take n in Kosheswar Bharali (supra) and I hold that extension of the period of settle ment of a ferry ghat cannot be granted by a Panchayat under the provisions of th e Assam Panchayat Act, 1994. 9. Because of the conclusions reached above, it becomes clear that the dire ctions, given by the Commissioner, in the impugned order, dated 06-05-2008, to t he said Panchayat to compensate Safiqul Hoque (i.e., the petitioner in WP(C) No . 2063/2008), by way of extension of the settlement, which had been granted to h im, is completely without jurisdiction and must be set aside. If the order, date d 06-05-2008, is set aside, the consequence would be that the writ petition, fil ed by the Sofiqul Hoque, seeking direction to the State respondents to extend hi s period of settlement, must also fail. 10. In the result, and for the reasons discussed above, the impugned orders, dated 06-05-2008 and 30.06.2008 are hereby set aside and quashed. The prayer fo r extension made by the petitioner, Safiqul Hoque, in WP(C) No. 2063/2008, is no t allowed; hence, this writ petition shall stand dismissed. 11. It is further directed that the said Panchayat shall proceed with the fi nalization of the lease, if they so decide, in terms of the notice inviting tend er, dated 03-05-2008. It is further made clear that Safiqul Hoque (i.e., the pe titioner in WP(C) No. 2063/2008) shall remain at liberty to recover his loss by taking resort to appropriate provisions of law. 12. With the above observations and directions, all these three writ petitio ns shall stand disposed of.