# (2010) 2 ILRA 752 - **Citation:** (2010) 2 ILRA 752 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2010-07-27 - **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 22903 of 2010 - **Bench:** Ashok Bhushan, Virendra Singh - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/2010-2-ilra-752-41688 - **Pages:** 4 ## Headnote Northern India Ferries Act-1978-Section8-Settlement of ferries Ghat-lease granted without approved of commissioner-held-no right acureddirection issued for expediting the consideration. Held: Para 14 In view of above, we are of the view that the approval of bid is required to be taken from the Commissioner. It is relevant to note that the condition of advertisement Clause 4 clearly contemplates approval of the Commissioner. Hence, we are satisfied that approval of the Commissioner is mandatory. The above bid having not yet been approved by the Commissioner, we are of the view that the Commissioner may take an appropriate decision with regard to the bid alleged to be held on 31.12.2009 after considering the objection of the petitioner within four weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him. Learned counsel for the Zila Panchayat submits that all the papers have already been forwarded to the Commissioner. Case law discussed: 2002 (93) RD 778 ## Text 752 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010 18,886/- along with pendentilite interest at the admissible rate and addition in the principal amount of G.P.F. at the prevailing rate of interest. 7. In the circumstances of the case, no order as to costs. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 27.07.2010 BEFORE THE HON'BLE ASHOK BHUSHAN, J. THE HON'BLE VIRENDRA SINGH, J. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 22903 of 2010 Matsya Jivi Sahkari Samiti Ltd. and another ...Petitioner Versus State of U.P. and others ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Virendra Singh Sri Anjani Kumar Sri Shashi Kant Shukla Counsel for the Respondents: Sri Mukesh Prasad, Sri Vijay Kumar Dixit Sri V.K. Nagaich C.S.C. Northern India Ferries Act-1978-Section8-Settlement of ferries Ghat-lease granted without approved of commissioner-held-no right acureddirection issued for expediting the consideration. Held: Para 14 In view of above, we are of the view that the approval of bid is required to be taken from the Commissioner. It is relevant to note that the condition of advertisement Clause 4 clearly contemplates approval of the Commissioner. Hence, we are satisfied that approval of the Commissioner is mandatory. The above bid having not yet been approved by the Commissioner, we are of the view that the Commissioner may take an appropriate decision with regard to the bid alleged to be held on 31.12.2009 after considering the objection of the petitioner within four weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him. Learned counsel for the Zila Panchayat submits that all the papers have already been forwarded to the Commissioner. Case law discussed: 2002 (93) RD 778 (Delivered by Hon'ble Ashok Bhushan, J.) 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri V.K. Dixit has appeared on behalf of respondent nos. 3 and 4. Sri Mukesh Prasad has appeared on behalf of respondent no. 5. Learned Standing Counsel appears for respondent nos. 1 and 2. 2. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exhcanged between the parties and with the consent of both the parties, the petition is being finally disposed of. 3. By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 09.02.2010 issued by respondent no. 3. A mandamus has also been sought commanding respondent nos. 2 and 3 to grant the ferry rights of ghats Bhedi Kharda, Bhedi Jalalpur, Himmanpura, Bhedi Khurd, District Hamirpur in favour of the petitioner. 4. Petitioner's case in the writ petition is thatthe petitioner is a registered Cooperative Society of fishermen and boatmen registered with the Registrar 2 All Matsya Jivi Sahkari Samiti Ltd. and another V State of U.P. and others 753 Matsya under the Provisions of U.P. Cooperative Socieities Act 1965. A lease for three years was gratned by the Zila Panchayat, Jalaunwhich expired on 30.09.2009. A letter dated 04.09.2009 by Nagar Panchayat, Jalaun was written that in view of the Government Order dated 04.08.2006, the ghats will be settled by Zila Panchayat, Hamirpur for the year 2009-10. A notice was issued by Zila Panchayat, Hamirpur inviting application/auction on 31.08.2003 fixing 21.09.2009. The Condition No. 4 provided that the lease shall be executed after receiving the approval of the Commissioner, Chitrakoot Dham. 5. The petitioner's case is that the petitioner has given an application on 11.09.2009. A writ petition WP No. 54877/2009 was filed by the petitioners which was however dismissed on 28.10.2009 observing that the ghat shall be settled by the concerned respondent by following proper procedure. It appears that after subsequent order of this court, 30.12.2009 was the date fixed. Petitioner's case is that no auction took place on 30.12.2009, whereas as per respondents, the auction was held on 30.12.2009, in which the respondent no. 5 had given bid which was accepted by the Zila Panchayat and order was also given to respondent no. 5 on 08.01.2010 communicating that his approval is upto 30.09.2010. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that till date, no approval has been obtained from the Commissioner for the bid which is said to have been given by respondent no. 5. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The first question to be considered in the writ petition is, that as to whether the approval of ferry ghat is required to be given by the Commissioner or by the Adhyaksh, Zila Panchayat as is alleged by the respondents by producing a copy of the order issued by Adhyaksh, Zila Panchayat dated 09.02.2010. Section 7, 7A and 8 of the Northern India Ferries Act, 1878 are quoted below: - "7. Management may be vested in Municipality -The State Government may direct that any public ferry situate within the limits of a town be managed by the officer or public body charged with the superintendence of the municipal arrangements of such town; (and thereupon that ferry shall be managed accordingly). 7-A. Management may be vested in District Council or District or Local Board -The State Government may direct that any public ferry, wholly or partly within the area subject to the authority of a District Council or District Board or a Local Board in the State be managed by that Council or Board, and thereupon that ferry shall be managed accordingly. 8. Letting ferry-tolls by auction- The tolls of any public ferry may, from time to time , be let by public auction for a term not exceeding five years, with the approval of the Commissioner or by public auction, or otherwise than by public auction for any term with the previous sanction of the State Government. 8. The lease shall conform to the rules made under this act for the management and control of the ferry, and 754 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010 may be called upon by the officer in whom the immediate superintendence of the ferry is vested, or, if the ferry is managed by a municipal or other public body under Sec. 7 or Sec. 7-A, then by that body, to give such security for his good conduct and for the punctual payment of the rent a the officer or body, as the case may be, thinks fit. 9. When the tolls are put to public auction, the said officer or body, as the case may be, or the officer conducting the sale on his or its behalf, may, for reasons recorded in writing, refuse to accept the offer of the highest bidder, and may accept any other bid, or may withdraw the tolls from auction." Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by virtue of Section 8 of the aforesaid Act, the ferry right needs approval of the Commissioner and without the approval, neither any lease can be granted, nor any auction can be settled, whereas learned counsel for respondent no. 5 submits that the approval is required u/s 7-A by the body which is managing the ferry ghat. He submits that the approval of the Commissioner has been mentioned in first part of Section 8 only pertaining to approval for the period for which the ferry is to be let out 10. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and persued the record. 11. Section 7 and 7-A of the Act deals with the management and the vesting of the ferry ghat in a District Council or District Board or Local Board. The first part of Section 8 provides that tolls of any public ferry may from time to time let by public auction for a term not exceeding five years with the approval of the Commissioner. Thus, any ferry not exceeding five years can be let out with the approval of the Commissioner. The second part of the same first paragraph of the Section provides that with the sanction of the State Government, a ferry right can be let out by public auction or otherwise for any term. Thus, the submission of learned counsel for the respondent that approval of the Commissioner is only with relation to the period for which ferry is to be let out is not acceptable. 12. The first part of Section 8 clearly provides that it is to be let out with the approval of the Commissioner. The third paragraph of Section 8 provides for acceptance of the offer by the officer which is conducting the sale and the right has been given to the officer conducting the sale to refuse to accept the highest bid or withdraw the toll from auction or accept any other bid. The above is clearly the power of officer conducting the sale and there is no conflict with the said power with the approval which is contemplated of the commissioner in first part of Section 8. 13. A Division Bench judgement referred by learned counsel reported in 2002 (93) RD 778 Navik Sahkari Majdoor Theka Samiti, Bewari Gola, Gorakhpur vs. Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur and Others also lays down that no auction can be settled without the approval of the Commissioner. Following was laid down in paragraph 3 of the judgement: - "The other kind of auction is where the auction is subject to approval by some authority until approval is granted by the authority concerned. Under Section 8 of 2 All M/s Uma Stone Crushing Company and another V State of U.P. and others 755 the Northern India Ferries Act, 1978 approval of the Commissioner is necessary. Since, admittedly, no approval was granted by the Commissioner, no auction has been settled in favour of the petitioner and hence no right has accrued in its favour. Hence, there is no question of giving opportunity of hearing, because opportunity of hearing has to be given only in those cases where some right has accrued and thereafter it is sought to be cancelled. Since in this case no right has accrued in favour of the petitioner, hence there is no need to give opportunity of hearing. There is no force in the writ petition. It is, accordingly, dismissed." 14. In view of above, we are of the view that the approval of bid is required to be taken from the Commissioner. It is relevant to note that the condition of advertisement Clause 4 clearly contemplates approval of the Commissioner. Hence, we are satisfied that approval of the Commissioner is mandatory. The above bid having not yet been approved by the Commissioner, we are of the view that the Commissioner may take an appropriate decision with regard to the bid alleged to be held on 31.12.2009 after considering the objection of the petitioner within four weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him. Learned counsel for the Zila Panchayat submits that all the papers have already been forwarded to the Commissioner. 15. The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observations. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.07.2010 BEFORE THE HON'BLE V. M. SAHAI, J. THE HON'BLE MRS. JAYASHREE TIWARI, J. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 26810 of 2010 M/s Uma Stone Crushing Company and another ...Petitioners Versus State of U.P. and others ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri S.S. Chauhan Sri Madan Lal Srivastava Counsel for the Respondents: S.C. U.P. Minerals (Prevention of illegal mining Transportation and Storage) Rules 2002-13(2)-Notice to seizer of Bolder and other article-before expiring of One month-as provided in statuary enactment illegal direction issued-if reply to Show Cause Notice filed-same shall be considered and decided-in between seized articles be released. Held: Para 9 If the petitioner is required to obtain any licence for storage of boulders within the area for which he had been leased then such an order should have been passed by the respondents only after one month from the date of service of show cause notice, giving detailed reasons but without expiry of one month of show cause notice the boulders could not be seized by the respondents in view of clear provision of Rule 13(2) of the Rules 2002. Therefore, show cause notice dated 19.4.2010 and simultaneous seizure of boulders is contrary to Rule 13(2) of the Rules 2002.