WA 71/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI, CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING) HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.C.UPADHYAY Ranjan Gogoi, CJ (Acting) Heard Mr SS Dey, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr UR Saikia, lea rned Standing Counsel, Transport Department. As agreed to and in view of the subject matter involved, the appeal is b eing disposed of at the admission stage. The challenge in the writ appeal is against an order dated 9.3.2010 pass ed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in WP(C) No. 5351/2009. By the afores aid order, the learned Single Judge found the settlement of the Nimati-Kamalabar i Ferry Service made with the appellant (respondent No.6 in the writ petition) to be contrary to law on account of non-submission of the requisite documents in dicating the value of the land standing in the name of the appellant. However, a s the period of the settlement of the ferry made with the appellant was upto 31. 3.2010, the learned Single Judge thought that it would not be proper to interfer e with the said settlement. Hence, the appellant (respondent No.6) was allowed t o run the ferry service upto 31.3.2010. The learned Single Judge, however, made it clear that for the ensuing period/ term the settlement of the ferry service i n question will be made on the basis of a tender process which was directed to b e initiated. It may be noticed, at this stage, that even before the learned Sing le Judge’s order dated 9.3.2010, a NIT dated 18.12.2009 had been published for s ettlement of 20 Ferry Services in the State including the Nimati-Kamalabari Ferr y Service. The principal contention of the appellant before us is that the ferry se rvice could be operated by him only from the month of November, 2009 though the period thereof was to commence from 1.4.2009. The appellant had, therefore, appl ied for direct settlement of the ferry under the provisions of Rule 4(2) of the Control and Management of Ferries Rules, 1968. As the said request of the appel lant was turned down by an order dated 2.2.2010, the appellant had instituted an other proceeding before this Court i.e. WP(C) No. 965/2010 which is still pendin g. It is, therefore, urged that the order of the learned Single Judge impugned i n the writ appeal has the effect of pre-judging the proceedings in WP(C) No. 965 /2010. It is also pointed out in the course of hearing that there is another wri t proceeding i.e. WP(C) No. 5941/2009 wherein the NIT dated 18.12.2009 has been challenged. In the said writ petition there is an interim order dated 27.1.2010 mandating that final order(s) of settlement pursuant to the NIT dated 18.12.2009 in respect of the ferry service(s) covered by the said NIT will not be made. We had called for the records of WP(C) Nos. 965/2010 and 5941/2009 and w e find that what has been stated above is correct. At the same time, we are informed by the learned Standing Counsel of the Department that the settlement of the ferry service in question i.e. Nimati-Kam alabari Ferry Service is nearly complete and the highest tenderer has been ident ified for the settlement effective from 1.4.2010. The steps taken by the Departm ent to finalise the settlement of the Nimati-Kamalabari Ferry Service for the fr esh term commencing from 1.4.2010 can be reasonably understood to be a sequel to the order dated 9.3.2010 passed in WP(C) 5351/2009 out of which this appeal has arisen. If the aforesaid order impugned in this appeal has the effect of pre-ju dging the proceedings in WP(C) No. 965/2010 or the said order is in any way cont rary to the interim order dated 27.1.2010 passed in WP(C) No. 5941/2009, the cor rect course of action for the appellant, according to us, would be to draw the a ttention of the learned Single Judge who had passed the order dated 9.3.2010 in WP(C) No. 5351/2009 and, thereafter, seek such remedial measures as he may be ad vised. In view of the aforesaid position of facts, we have not been able to per suade ourselves to accept this appeal for any further hearing by formally admitt ing the same. We, therefore, decline to admit this appeal and close the same by permitting the appellant to avail of such other remedies as may be open to him against the order passed by the learned Single Judge which has been impugned in the present appeal. The writ appeal, therefore, shall stand disposed of in terms of the abov e.