1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8826 of 2008 NAV YATAYAT SAHYOG SAMITTEE LTD. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2 18.7.2008 Petitioner’s grievance is that he had been settled with the right to operate ferry inter alias in respect of Gopalpur Ghat to Aamdabad Ghat by the Additional Collector ,Katihar ,which is apparent from memo no. 7, dated 1.4.2008 (Annexure 2). This Ghat, he submits, is the same as another which is locally referred to as Kotakash Ghat to Amairabad Khutagari Gola Ghat. This would be clear from Annexure 6 being letter no. 155, dated 21.4.2008 of the Anchal Adhikari,Amdabad, District-Katihar. Under some misconception , it is submitted, that the learned Additional Collector, Katihar has directed the Subdivisional Officer , Manihari, District-Katihar to ensure that this Ghat, in question, which apparently has mistakenly been settled with the Nav Yatgayat Sahyog Samittee, Dilarpur Anchal Manihari, District-Katihar also and as such the Subvdivisional Officer, Manihari should ensure that the said society of Dilarpur be ensured of their revenue collection. Petitioner submits that this is misconceived as the ferry, in question, is an exclusive ferry falling within the Amdabad block and its control or operation cannot be controlled or given to Manihari block. In my view, a detailed representation in this matter be made to the Additional Collector, Katihar, who would look into the matter and after perusing the reports and hearing the parties pass a speaking order within three weeks of filing of certified copy 2 of the order of this Court. Order so passed must be a speaking order giving reasons of decision and must be forthwith communicated to all the parties. The Additional Collector must realise the urgency of the matter and if not resolved immediately, the law and order problem might be created. With this observation and direction, this writ application stands disposed of. singh ( Navaniti Prasad Singh )