WP(C) 958/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B.P.KATAKEY Heard Mr MU Mondal, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Ms K Dutta, le arned counsel for respondent No.1. Also heard Mr R Tati, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 & 3. The petitioner, by the present petition has prayed for a direction to the respondent authorities, more particularly the respondent No.1, that is, the Principal Secretary to the Govt of Assam in the Transport Department to settle by negotiation the Lengtisingha-Santoshpur-Bartari Ferry Service with him for a further period of three years, pursuant to representation dated 29 September 201 0 filed by him, under Rule 4(2) of Control & Management of Ferries Rules 1968. A ccording to the petitioner, said ferry service was settled with him by the order dated 21 June 2010 for a period of one year, that is, from 1 April 2010 to 31 M arch 2011 and by virtue of which he is still running it. It is also the case of the petitioner that because of certain litigation relating to the said order of settlement, he could not run the entire period, despite making payment of entire kist money. The petitioner, therefore, filed a representation before the Secret ary of the Transport Department to invoke powers under Rule 4(2) of aforesaid Ru les, for settling the ferry service by negotiation, to recover the loss suffered by him. It appears that vide order dated 21 June 2010 the ferry service in question was settled with the petitioner up-to 31 March 2011. The petitioner is still running the said ferry service. He filed a representation before the Secre tary of the Transport Department, praying for a direct-settlement, or for a sett lement by negotiation, for a further period of three years by invoking the power s under Rule 4(2) of 1968 Rules, contending that he has suffered loss, as he cou ld not run the ferry service for the entire period because of certain lis agains t the said settlement order. Rule 4(1) of 1968 Rules provides that all ferries which are let by pu blic auction or by calling for tenders shall be managed by the lessee subject to these rules and the conditions entered in the lease granted for each ferry. Fer ry which could not be settled either by public auction or by calling for tenders shall be managed by the Executive Engineer or Sub-divisional Officer, as the ca se may be, with the approval of the Government. The ground on which the representation dated 29 September 2010 was f iled before the Secretary to Government of Assam in Transport Department for a d irect settlement, or a settlement by negotiation, for a further period of 3 year s, cannot be the ground to exercise the power by the Secretary, as only in excep tional circumstances such power can be exercised. If the petitioner has suffered any loss because of any litigation filed against said order of settlement, he m ay file applications for remission or refund of appropriate kist money. Sufferan ce of loss cannot be the ground for direct settlement or a negotiated-settlement , as provided under Rule 4(2) of 1968 Rules. In view of above, I do not find any merit in the present writ petit ion to grant the relief, as prayed for, and hence it is dismissed. It would, how ever, not preclude the petitioner from filing applications before appropriate au thority for remission and/or refund of the kist money. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs.