MC 1304/2009 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY Heard Mr. D.K. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. I. Choudh ury, learned counsel who appears for respondent No.7. The I.W.T. Department and its officials are represented by its standing counsel. Mr. R. Ali, learned Govt . Advocate appears for respondent No.6. This matter pertains to the Guijan-Borghuli via Kabuchapori Ferry Service, which has been temporarily settled in favour of respondent No.7 by the order dated 14 .5.09 of the Tinsukia Zila Parishad for a period of 45 days from 15.5.09 to 30.6 .09. The aforesaid Ferry was earlier settled directly by the Govt. by considerin g it to be a notified Ferry under Section 4 of the Ferries Act. But on a challen ge made by respondent No.7 to a direct settlement order dated 28.4.08 of the Gov t., this Court while entertaining W.P.(C) No. 1697/08 passed orders on 16.5.08 a nd held that the jurisdiction to make the settlement of the Ferry is not with th e Govt. but with the Anchalik Panchayat, who has the freedom to make the settlem ent, in terms of Section 106 of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994 by inviting tender s for making such settlement. In pursuant to the said order of the Court, the Tinsukia Zila Parishad issued a sale notice on 14.5.09 inviting tenders to be submitted by 5.6.09 for settlement of the Ferry from 1.7.09 to 30.6.10. Simultaneously for the interregnum i.e. ti ll the Ferry was settled in terms of the sale notice w.e.f. 1.7.09, a temporary arrangement was made by the Tinsukia Zila Parishad permitting the respondent No. 7 to manage the Ferry from 15.5.09 to 30.6.09. The writ petitioner without mentioning that a sale notice dated 14.5.09 has alre ady been issued by the Anchalik Panchayat for making settlement of the Ferry by a tender process, as prescribed under Section 106 of the Panchayat Act, made a c hallenge to the temporary settlement given to the respondent No.7 by contending that the said settlement order has been passed by the Tinsukia Zila Parishad, wi thout following the procedure prescribed under Section 106 of the Act. This Court accordingly by accepting the contention that settlement has been mad e without inviting tender, passed an interim order on 16.5.09, staying the tempo rary settlement order granted in favour of respondent No.7. Mr. I. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for Misc. applicant/Respondent No.7 submits that the said interim order passed by this Court on 16.5.09 at the inst ance of the writ petitioner should not be continued as the writ petitioner had n ot disclosed in his writ petition that a sale notice inviting tenders has also b een issued on 14.5.09 by the Tinsukia Anchalik Panchayat and the arrangement mad e in favour of respondent No.7 was a temporary arrangement for the interregnum p eriod . It is also submitted that even for the temporary arrangement of 45 days before t he formal settlement, the Tinsukia Zila Parishad made a choice of respondent No. 7 as it was respondent No.7 who had given the highest offer to the Govt. for ge tting settlement of the Ferry and therefore it is contended that choosing respon dent No. 7 to temporarily run the Ferry for 45 days till formal settlement was m ade, could not be said an unreasonable selection. It is also contended by Mr. Choudhury that Tinsukia Zila Parishad does not have the manpower for managing the ferry even for a few weeks and in fact they have e ngaged two old lessees Shri Keshab Senapati and Shri Paltan Das, for collecting tolls for the Ferry after the interim order was passed by this Court. The couns el points out that it is reflected in the communication dated 28.5.09 of the Chi ef Executive Officer of the Tinsukia Zila Parishad made to the Executive Officer of the Guijan Anchalik Panchayat that public complaint has been lodged against the engaged persons deputed for collection of tolls from the passengers. Mr. D.K. Das, learned counsel for the writ petitioner, on the other hand, submit s that even for making temporary arrangement, the Zila Parishad could have resor ted to a short sale notice and should not have allowed respondent No.7 to manage the Ferry. Having regard to the contentions made by the learned counsels, I find that the w rit petitioner did not disclose to the Court that the process for settlement of the Ferry as per Section 106 of the Panchayat Act was already initiated by the Zila Parishad by issuing a sale notice on 14.5.09 and the settlement order give n on the same date to respondent No. 7 was only a temporary arrangement made for 45 days. By withholding such a vital fact, it is apparent that the petitioner h ad not approached the Court with clean hands and is therefore guilty of suppress ion of material facts. As I find that the settlement order dated 14.5.09 was only a temporary arrangeme nt before the chosen lessee takes over w.e.f. 1.7.09, and it would have been bet ter if such a temporary settlement would have been also made by a short sale not ice. But under the circumstances noticed above, where this Court held that the F erry in question is to be settled not by the Govt. but by the Anchalik Panchayat , and the settling authority have already issued the sale notice in terms of Sec tion 106 of the Panchayat Act, I am of the view that the temporary arrangement m ade by the impugned order was not improper and therefore I feel that the interim order passed by this Court on 16.5.09 is required to be recalled. Accordingly, the said interim order operating against the respondent No.7 is vac ated. This Misc. Case stands allowed accordingly.