Judgment:
Samarendra Pratap Sinha, J.
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioner prays for quashing of Parwana issued for six ferry Ghats to respondent No. 5 in the district of Munger contained in annexure 5 as well as order dated 31.3.2009, passed in Revenue appeal No. 10/2009 by Divisional Commissioner, Munger, annexure 6 by which the appeal of petitioner was dismissed.
3. The petitioner who is Naw Yatayat Swawlambi Sahkari Samiti Ltd., Munger, under the Bihar Self Supporting Co-operative Society Act, 1996 states that the impugned settlement of six Ghats has been done to private individuals without public auction in violation of Government decision dated 10.9.1978, contained in annexure 8 and letter of Cooperative department dated 9.3.2002, annexure 9. Furthermore, he submits that DDC acted in violation of provision of Panchayati Raj Act (in short the Act).
4. Ghats in question were settled with the petitioner in the year 2007-08. However, settlement for year 2008-09 was made with respondent No. 5, namely, Saket Kumar Choudhary. The petitioner challenged aforesaid settlement of six Ghats vides C.W.J.C. No. 4633/08 which was dismissed on 16.4.2008. The petitioner made a request to the Chief Executive Officer (C.E.O.) cum D.D.C. of Zila Parishad, Munger through letter dated 13.12.2008, contained in annexure 4 for settlement of Ghats in his favour on Reserve jama. However, the Zila Parishad without any proper notice settled the Ghats in favour of respondent No. 5 in violation of Bengal Ferry Act and issued parwana vide letter No. 32 dated 21.2.2009 as contained in annexure 5. Petitioner's society preferred appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, Munger being Revenue appeal No. 10/2009, which was finally dismissed on 31.3.2009 (annexure 6). The memo of appeal filed by the petitioner before the Commissioner is annexed as annexure 7.
5. The petitioner states that settlement has been made in favour of respondents in violation of Government circular dated 12.9.1978 contained in annexure 8 and the decision of Co-operative department bearing letter No. 736 dated 9.3.2002, contained in annexure 9. The petitioner states that the D.D.C. cum C.E.O. acted in violation of Sections 67 and other provisions of the Act.
6. Respondent No. 4, the D.D.C. filed counter affidavit denying the allegations made by petitioner and stated that settlement has been made in accordance with law. It has been stated that most of the points which have been raised in this writ petition were also subject matter of consideration in C.W.J.C. No. 4633/08 filed by petitioner itself against settlement of Ghats in the foregoing year 2008-09 in favour of respondent No. 5. It has been stated in para 9 of counter affidavit that in the year 2007-08, all the six ferry Ghats were settled in favour of petitioner's society. For the year 2008-09, Zila Parishad, Munger had made public notice in the News paper for settlement of six ferry Ghats notifying 23.1.2008, 06.2.2008 and 19.2.2008, as dates of public auction in order to obtain the highest amount possible. However, no one turned up on 23.1.2008 and 6.2.2008. On 9.2.2008 Sita Kund Naw Yatayat Sahkari Samiti Limited turned up and deposited Rs. 3,07,775/- but it failed to deposit the full amount (reserve/jama) Rs. 12,31,000/-. In the said circumstances, the deponent had only option to make settlement on basis of open auction. Written notice was given to the petitioner to attend public bid, but it did not respond. In the meantime, Saket Kumar Choudhary, respondent No. 5 turned up for taking the settlement of six ferry ghats in the District of Munger and deposited the full amount (Reserve/jama) Rs. 12,31,000/-which was approved by the Zila Parishad, Munger and Parwana was issued on 10.3.2009 to Saket Kumar for the six ferry Ghats.
7. Respondents state in para 14 of the counter affidavit that in the instant case, as petitioner's Society did not turn up on the date fixed for public auction. The Zila Parishad after following the terms and conditions of the Ferry Act, 1885, issued parwana in favour of respondent No. 5 on depositing the full amount of Rs. 12,31,000/- in order to protect public revenue. It was further submitted that the Zila Parishad had taken legal action in accordance with terms of Bengal Ferry Act and Government circular.
8. Respondent No. 5 filed counter affidavit stating that during existence of his lease/settlement of the said Ghats for the year 2008-09, he filed an application on 4.12.2008 before the D.D.C. cum C.E.O. showing his readiness to take settlement of the said Ghats for the year 2009-10 on rates 5% above Reserve jama. Pursuant to communication contained in letter No. 618 dated 15.12.2008 of D.D.C., contained in annexure A series, he deposited a sum of Rs. 12,92,550/- which was five percent more than existing Reserve jama by 17.12.2008.
9. It would appear from annexure 7, the Government circular dated 12.9.2008 that policy of the Government is to give preference to the Co-operative societies, if they are willing to take settlement on Reserve jama. In case, if they are not ready to take settlement on Reserve jama, then the same would be made through open auction. It appears that despite written notice as stated in para 9 of the counter affidavit, the petitioner did not participate in settlement. The memo of Cooperative department dated 9.3.2002 favours settlement with Co-operative Societies provided they are willing to deposit the Reserve jama.
10. In the instant case, stand of respondent No. 5 is that the petitioner's society was never willing to deposit the Reserve jama. It would further appear from order of the Commissioner that post facto he has approved the terms and conditions laid down by the Jila Parishad in view of letter No. 9388-91-L-S-G dated 19.11.1931. Reliance of the petitioner on Sections 67 and 76 of Bihar Panchayat Raj Act is misplaced as the aforesaid provisions would come to no aid in the facts of the case.
11. This Court in its order contained in annexure- 3 has held that reliance upon Section 9 of the Bengal Ferries Act, 1885 would be of no help to petitioner. The proviso to the same introduced by the Bihar Amendment, would also not inure to the benefit of the petitioners, as the proviso confers benefit upon the Co-operative Societies registered under the Bihar and Orissa Co-operative Societies Act, 1935, whereas both the Societies including petitioner's Society have been registered under the Bihar Self Supporting Co-operative Societies Act, 1996.
12. In the instant case, the petitioner's society did not come forward to take settlement on Reserve jama. It would further appear form provision of Section 9 of Bihar Ferries Act that for good and sufficient reasons, it is open to the authorities to make the settlement for augmenting public revenue.
13. In the aforesaid backdrop, this Court does not find any merit in this application and the same is dismissed. However dismissal of writ petition would not prejudice the petitioner from making a representation for settlement of Ghats for the year 2010-11 which will commence from 1.4.2010. The authorities would take steps in advance so that delay in settlement may not cause prejudice to any party or to loss of revenue to the Government.