WP(C) 472/2008 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T.N.K. SINGH Heard Mr A. Roshid, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard al so learned counsel for the respondent Nos 1 and 2, none appears for the respond ent No.3 inspite of proper service of notice of the present writ petition. By this writ petition, the petitioner is assailing the NIT date d 1.2.07 for settlement of the Bazar Mahal Parghat and Khutgari by the Goalpara Municipal Board for the period from 1.4.07 to 31.3.08. Neglecting the unnecessary details, a short fact leading to the filing of the present writ petition is required to be noted. The petitioner is c ollecting tolls and revenue fee from the passengers and goods at Goalpara Ferry Ghat at the Brahmaputra River Side. Under Rule 35 of the Control and Managemen t of Ferries Rules, 1968 and Section 13 of the Northern Indian Ferries Act, 187 8, any other authority/person can not establish, maintain or work a Ferry to or from any point within a distance of 3.2 K.M. from the limits of a public Ferry without proper approval of the competent authority. It is stated that the Goalpa ra Municipal Board without any authority settled the Parghats and Goalpara Ferry Ghat which is within the distance of 3.2 K.M. from the Goalpara Ferry Ghat to s ome other person. The petitioner also further asserts that because of the said unauthorized establishment and /or maintenance of the said two Ferry Ghats i.e Bazar Mahal Parghat and Khutgari Parghat within 3.2 K.M. from the Goalpara Ferr y Ghat, the petitioner is unable to collect the tolls and revenue , as a result thereof there is a considerable decreased in collection of tolls and revenue from the passengers and goods at Goalpara Ferry Ghat. Over and above, the Chairman, Goalpara Municipal Board issued no tice vide NIT dated 1.2.07 to the public for settlement of the said two Ferry G hat i.e. Bazar Mahal Parghat and Khutgari Parghat on lease from 2007-2008(w.e.f 1.4.07 to 31.3.08). Being aggrieved by the said NIT dated 1.2.07, the petitioner fil ed the present writ petition on the ground that under Rule 35 of the Control and Management of Ferries Rules, 1968 and Section 13 of the Northern Indian Ferrie s, Act 1878 , the Goalpara Municipal Board can not open/manage the said two Ferr y Ghats within the distance of 2.3 KM from Goalpara Ferry Ghat which is now und er lease with the petitioner. As stated above, the respondent No.2 , Deputy Commissioner, Goal para inspite of proper service of notice does not file affidavit in opposition. This court also given anxious consideration of mind to the fact of the present writ petition and also carefully perused the Rule 35 of the Cont rol and Management of Ferries Rules, 1878. After perusal of the said Rules and also after submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, this court is of the considered view that a n interference to the said NIT dated 1.2.07 is called for. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 1.2.07 is set aside and qu ashed. The writ petition is allowed.