WP(C) 3412/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY Heard Mr. Das, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mrs. Phukan, the learned State counsel appearing for the respondent No.1, Ms. K. Dutta, the learn ed counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 and Mr. R. Tanti, the learned couns el appearing for the respondent Nos.3 and 4. The petitioner has filed this present petition challenging the NIT dated 14.05.2010 issued by the Tinsukia Zila Parishad solely on the ground that since vide order dated 21.05.2010 passed in WP(C) No.2894/2010 this Court had directe d to maintain status quo as regards the ferry service i.e. Guijan Parghat, till disposal of the representation filed by the writ petitioner in the said writ pet ition as well as the Tinsukia Zila Parishad, by the Government, relating to the declaration of such ferry service as public ferry service under the provisions o f Northern India Ferries Act, 1878, the Zila Parishad cannot issue the notice in viting tender till disposal of such representations. According to the petitioner such representations have not been disposed of till date by the Government. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that apar t from the said ground on which the NIT dated 14.05.2010 has been put to challen ge, the said NIT has not been challenged on no other ground. It appears that the petitioner in view of the pendency of the writ petit ion being WP(C) No.2894/2010 was allowed temporary settlement vide order dated 0 6.07.2009 on monthly basis till the disposal of the writ petition. The said writ petition has been disposed of by order dated 21.05.2010 directing the State res pondents to consider and dispose of the representation filed by the writ petitio ner in the said writ petition dated 30.01.2010 as well as the communication issu ed by the Tinsukia Zila Parishad dated 05.02.2010 as expeditiously as possible a fter causing necessary enquiry. By the said order it had also been directed that till disposal of the representations the status quo as on date as regards the f erry service shall be maintain making it clear that until such final decision is taken by the concerned authority, the ferry service in question would be under the jurisdiction of the Tinsukia Zila Parishad. According to the petitioner since such order of status quo has been pass ed by this Court and the representations have not been disposed of, he is entitl ed to continue to manage the ferry service pursuant to the order of temporary se ttlement dated 06.07.2009. Such conception of the petitioner cannot be accepted as it is evident fr om the order of temporary settlement dated 06.07.2009 that the same was passed t ill disposal of the aforesaid writ petition by this Court. This Court while disp osing of the writ petition by order dated 21.05.2010 had also made it clear that till disposal of the representations by the State Government, the ferry service in question shall be within the jurisdiction of the Tinsukia Zila Parishad, whi le directing the parties to maintain status quo, which naturally does not mean t hat the petitioner would be allowed to continue to manage the ferry service purs uant to the order of temporary settlement. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the present writ petiti on and hence the same is dismissed.