WA 133/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.D. AGARWAL The judgment and order dated 19/4/2010 passed in WP(C) No.535/2010 disposing of the writ petition filed by respondent 1 herein permitting him to avail the settl ement of Langtisinga Bortary Santoshpur Ferry service up to 30/6/2010 and at the same time annulling the NIT dated 14/12/2009 of the Inland Water Transport Depa rtment, Assam, for the same service for the period 1/4/2010 to 31/3/2011 forms t he subject matter of the instant appeal. 2. Heard Mr. A.M. Mazumdar, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. S. Ali l earned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. B.J. Ghosh learned State counse l and Mr. R. Ali, learned counsel for respondent No.1. 3. The facts leading to the present appeal in short would be required to be noticed. The respondent No.1 was settled with the aforementioned Ferry service for the period 1/7/2009 to 13/6/2010 by the Rupshi Anchalik Panchayat vide order dated 29/6/2009. While the said settlement was in force the Inland Water Transp ort Assam (hereinafter referred to as IWT) issued NIT on 14/12/2009 inviting ten ders for the settlement of the said ferry service for the period 1/4/2010 to 31/ 3/2011. This NIT was assailed by the respondent No.1 by the above mentioned writ petition inter alia on the ground that it was impermissible on the part of the IWT to issue it during the ongoing period of settlement which was in his favour. In the alternative it was also impugned on the ground that the same had the pot ential of dissenting him to participate in the said process as his earlier settl ement was continuing. 4. The appellant herein impleaded as respondent No.7 resisted the challenge inter alia on the ground that as the process of settlement initiated by the imp ugned NIT was valid, no interference of this Court was called for. It was also p ointed out by him that before the impugned NIT had been issued, the ferry in que stion was converted into public ferry thus empowering the IWT to initiate the pr ocess as done. 5. The learned Single Judge upon hearing the parties to the fray recorded t hat the Langtisinga Bortary Santoshpur Ferry service had during the period of se ttlement of respondent No.1/writ petitioner been declared as public ferry under Section 4 of the Northern Indian Ferries Act, 1878, vide Assam Gazette Notificat ion dated 1/9/2009 and that accordingly the IWT was vested with jurisdiction to settle the same. The fact that prior thereto the ferry service had been settled with respondent No.1 by the Rupshi Anchalik Panchayat for the period ending 30/6 /2010 was also taken note of. Observing that the jural relationship between resp ondent No.1 and the aforementioned Anchalik Panchayat vis a vis the settlement w ould continue only till 30/6/2010, he was permitted to operate the ferry till th at date. The learned single Judge however interfered with the impugned tender no tice. This was in spite of the acknowledgment of the jurisdiction of IWT to sett le the ferry in accordance with law. 6. Mr. Mazumdar has urged that the authority and discretion of the IWT in s ettling the ferry, which in the meantime had been converted into public ferry un der Section 4 of the Northern Indian Ferries Act, 1878, having been declared by the learned Single Judge, the annulment of the impugned NIT dated 14/12/2009 is unsustainable in law. The learned Senior counsel, on instructions, has submitted that the appellant without prejudice to the above has no objection if in terms of the impugned judgment and order the respondent No.1 completes his period of s ettlement ending on 30/6/2010. He however submits that in the facts and circumst ances an appropriate order ought to be passed by this Court permitting the IWT t o complete the process commenced by the impugned NIT. 7. Mr. R. Ali, however has reiterated the stand of the respondent No.1 in h is pleadings as above. He has urged that as the settlement period mentioned in t he impugned NIT overlapped with the one, which he has been enjoying, it is inval id. As, he could not participate in the process initiated by the IWT due to his subsisting settlement the impugned process was rightly repudiated by the learned Single Judge. Mr.Ghosh however urged that as on date the respondent No.1 has no locus to challenge the validity of the process initiated by the IWT as he had n ot participated in the exercise and that therefore there is no justifiable reaso n to abrogate it. 8. We have considered to the pleadings on record and the arguments advanced . Though the learned Single Judge has acknowledged the valid conversion of the f erry to a public Ferry under Section 4 of the Northern Indian Ferries Act, 1878 and has also accepted the jurisdiction of IWT to settle the same in accordance w ith law, the respondent No.1 has not questioned the tenability thereof in the ap peal. The findings of the learned Single Judge to these effect thus remain unass ailed and, therefore, according to us, the challenge of respondent No.1 to the p rocess, initiated by the NIT dated 14/12/09 after a final determination made by the learned Single Judge, on these counts cannot be upheld. Though admittedly th e period of settlement as mentioned in the impugned NIT entrenches upon the one being availed for the present by the respondent No.1 the same per se, in our est imate could not have been a hindrance for him to offer his candidature in the re sultant process if he wished to do so. As noticed hereinabove, the respondent No .1 was allowed to continue with his settlement upto 30/6/2010. In the above fact s and circumstances of the case, we are of the view, having regard to the conclu sions recorded by the learned Single Judge with regard to the validity of conver sion of the ferry into a public ferry as well as the jurisdiction of IWT to sett le the same, that the invalidation of the tender notice dated 14/12/2009 cannot be sustained. The appeal is allowed. 9. The respondent No.1 would be permitted to avail the benefit of his settl ement as awarded by the Rupshi Anchalik Panchayat till 30/6/2010. However, meanw hile the IWT would take necessary steps to complete the process of settlement in itiated vide the NIT dated 14/12/2009 as expeditiously as possible and in accord ance with law to be effective from 1/7/2010. 10. No costs.