WP(C) 1993/2009 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY Heard Mr. A.K. Goswami, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner. Mr . U.R. Saikia, learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 1 and 2. Mr. A. Das , learned counsel appears for the private respondent No. 5. Ms. R.S. Deori, lear ned counsel appears for respondents No. 3 and 4. The petitioner challenges the settlement of Dibrugarh Majorbari Ferry Service gi ven in favour of respondent No. 5 Sri Jun Gogoi by the Govt. No. TWT/59/96/Vol- III/176 dated 14.5.09. The said settlement is challenged on the ground that tend er notice inviting offers was not published in the newspaper. The learned standi ng counsel for Deptt. on the basis of instruction received from the Director, IW T admits that the tender notice for the aforesaid Ferry Service was not publishe d in the newspapers. Mr. Goswami, learned counsel refers to the communication dated 19.1.09 (Annexure -A) of the Executive Engineer, IWT, Dibrugarh, wherein there was a request for p ublication of the tender notice in two newspapers namely, Dainik Janambhumi an d Pratidin . Under Rule 16 of the Control and Management of Ferries Rules, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules ), wide publicity of the tender notice before giving settlement of Ferries under the Rules is prescribed.. In view of the submissions of the Departmental counsel, it is apparent that the settlement in favour of respondent No. 5 has been given by disregarding the prov isions of Rule 16 of the Rules by not publishing the tender notice in the newspa pers as was requested by the Executive Engineer on 19.1.09 and necessary publici ty was not given for larger participation of interested tenderer. The learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 5, the settlement holder, on th e other hand submits that he has already obtained possession of the Ferry on 21. 5.09 and is presently managing the Ferry by paying the requisite kists. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsels and also the provi sions of the Rules, I am of the considered opinion that the settlement granted i n favour of respondent No. 5 cannot be sustainable in law. Accordingly, the sett lement order dated 14.5.09 is quashed. The settling authorities are now directed to take steps for settlement of the Di brugarh Majorbari Ferry Service by publishing the sale notice in newspapers, in conformity with the requirement of Rule 16 of the Rules and therefore make settl ement of the Ferry to the most competitive and suitable tenderer. This fresh pro cess culminating in a settlement order should positively be concluded on or befo re 18.7.09. The Department may for the interregnum period permit the respondent No. 5 to ope rate the Ferry. But it is made clear that the respondent No. 5 shall not have an y right to operate the Ferry beyond 18.7.09. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. A copy of the instruction dated 30.5.09 from the Director, IWT be kept in the re cords of the case.