WP(C) 5076/2007 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE IA ANSARI A notice, dated 19-06-2007, was published by respondent No. 2, namely, D irector, Inland Water Transport (IWT), Assam, for settlement of Kurihamari-Guwah ati via Sualkuchi Commercial Cargo-Cum-Passenger Ferry Service, for a period of one year. The petitioner claims that pursuant to the said Notice Inviting Tender (in short, ’the NIT’), the petitioner submitted his tender, but the respondent No. 2 did not consider the petitioner’s tender, though the petitioner was the hi ghest bidder and, instead, respondent No. 2 has directly settled the ferry in fa vour of the respondent No. 3. The respondent No. 3 has not appeared and contested the proceedings. The State respondents, namely, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have, however, filed their a ffidavit and according to them, only two tenders were received pursuant to the s aid NIT and since there ought to have been three number of tenders in order to e nable the State respondents concerned to make settlement, the whole tender proce ss was abandoned. The State respondents contend that the present writ petitioner did not submit his tender and as the respondent No. 3 had given an offer of dir ect settlement at a rate, which was 20% higher than the departmental collection, the settlement has been made by the respondent No. 2 in favour of the responden t No. 3. Reacting to the affidavit, so filed, the petitioner has, by way of affi davit-in-reply, reiterated that he was one of the tenderers and though his bid w as the highest, his tender was illegally rejected. Heard Mr. A Sharif, learned counsel for the writ petitioner, and Mr. R T anti, learned Standing Counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. None has appeared on behalf of the respondent No. 3. The question as to whether the writ petitioner had, in fact, submitted h is tender or not is a question of fact and since the State respondents resist th e petitioner’s plea that he had submitted tender papers pursuant to the said NIT , such a disputed question of fact cannot be decided in a writ proceeding, such as, the present one. What is, however, of grave concern to this Court is that th e State respondents do not have any system of issuing any form of acknowledgemen t or receipt for tenders, which are received by them. Thus, the process of takin g decision on the tender papers is ex facie contrary to the system of transparen cy, which is required to adhere to, in public interest, by every Government Depa rtment, in every tender process. Coupled with the above, what can also not be ignored is that in terms of the provisions of Rule 4(2) of Control & Management of Ferries Rules, 1968, it is the Secretary, Inland Water Transport Department, Government of Assam, who is the competent authority to grant settlement to public ferry directly or by nego tiation. In the present case, the settlement, in favour of the respondent No. 3, has been directly granted by the Director of the said Department. The settlemen t, so granted, in favour of the respondent No. 3 is, ex facie, without jurisdict ion, for, a Director of the said Department has no jurisdiction to make direct s ettlement. Thus, the settlement, made in favour of the respondent No. 3, is whol ly illegal and cannot be allowed to survive. In view of the above and in the interest of justice, the settlement made by the respondent No. 2, namely, Director, Inland Water Transport (IWT), Assam, in favour of the respondent No. 3, namely, Md. Habej Ali, is hereby set aside. The State respondents are hereby directed to either run the ferry, in question, departmentally or make settlement in accordance with law provided that the ferry is one, which the State respondents are competent to operate or settle. With the above observations and directions, this writ petition shall sta nd disposed of. No order as to costs.