JUDGMENT B. P. Singh, J.-The petitioner herein is aggrieved by the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Sahebganj, settling 35 public ferries with the respondent no. 4 Co-operative Society for the year 1991-92. He has challenged the auction on various grounds, including the ground that the Deputy Commissioner acted on the dictate of the Chief Minister, and therefore the exercise of statutory power was on extraneous consideration. He bas challenged this action also on the ground that it is mandatory for the State Government to define the limits of the public ferries under section 6 (d) of the Bengal Ferries Act 1885. Unless the State Government defines the limits of the public ferries, no settlement can be made having regard to the scheme of the Act. He further made a grievance that despite several orders of this Court, as also the order of the Commissioner of the Division, no effort has been made to define the limits of the public ferries which adversely affects the interest of the petitioner. It is his case that apart from the requirement of the Act, in the absence of such definition, persons like the petitioner may be exposed to prosecution under section 16 of the Act which prohibits any person from maintaining a ferry to or from any point within a distance of two miles from the limits of a public ferry. 2. Counsel for the petitioner fairly submitted that so far as the instant dispute is concerned, the petitioner has lost interest primarily on account of the fact that the period for which the settlement was made was to run out on 31st of March 1992. He however submits that since the same dispute arises every year when the settlements are made, this Court should issue clear directions to the authorities to act in accordance with the provisions of the Act so as to obviate perpetual litigation. 3. I shall firstly consider the scheme of the Act. Section 6 of the Act vests in the State Govt. power to declare, establish, define, and discontinue Public ferries. Such declaration establishment, definition, or discontinuance has to be made by notifications which may be issued from time to time. Section 6 (d) provides that the State Govt. should define the limits of any public ferry. Section 6 of the Act vests in the State Govt. power to declare, establish, define, and discontinue Public ferries. Such declaration establishment, definition, or discontinuance has to be made by notifications which may be issued from time to time. Section 6 (d) provides that the State Govt. should define the limits of any public ferry. The definition of a public ferry is essential because the ferry tolls may be leased out by auction from time to time; or may be settled with any agency of the Government of India or the State Government, with a registered Co-operative Society. Obviously therefore there must be certainty about the limits of the public ferry to be settled with the lessee. In the absence of such definition, disputes are bound to arise not only between the lessee and the Govt., but also between the different lessees inter-se. Section 16 provides that no person shall maintain a ferry to or from any point within a distance of two miles from the limits of a public ferry without the sanction of the Magistrate of the District. A breach of the provision of section 16 entails a penalty under section 28 of the Act. It is therefore, all the more important that before a person can be punished for committing a breach of section 16 of the Act, he must be informed about the limits of the public ferry so that he may not trespass within the limits of a public ferry. 4. Section 7 of the Act vests in the Magistrate of the District the control of all public ferries. Section 8 vests in the Magistrate of the District the power of superintendence of every public ferry or in any such other officer as to State Govt. may from time to time, either by name or by official designation appointed. Section 9 of the Act provides that the tolls of public ferries may, from time to time be leased by public auction for such time as the Magistrate of the District in which such ferry is situated may, with the approval of the Commissioner direct. It further vests in the Magistrate or the officer who may conduct such auction, the authority to refuse to accept the offer of the highest bidder or to accept any other bid or to withdraw the tolls from auction. It further vests in the Magistrate or the officer who may conduct such auction, the authority to refuse to accept the offer of the highest bidder or to accept any other bid or to withdraw the tolls from auction. This power however must be exercised for sufficient reasons to be recorded in writing. The lessee of the tolls are required to execute a contract stating forthwith the conditions on which the tolls of such ferries are to be held. Section 13 authorises the Magistrate of the District to cancel the lease of the tolls of any public ferry for the reasons stated. Similarly the Magistrate of the district, with the approval of the Commissioner, may from time to time make rules consistent with the Act in respect of the matters enumerated in section IS of the Act. 5. It will thus appear that section 6 vests in the State Government, the power to declare, establish define, and discontinue public ferries. Thereafter the provisions of the Act vest in the District Magistrate, subject to the direction of the Commissioner, the control of all public ferries, and power of superintendence from time to time. It also authorises him to lease tolls of any public ferry for a term, and also the power to cancel the leas for reasons stated in the Act. He has also the power to make rules in regard to the public ferries. 6. So far as leasing out of the tolls of a public ferry is concerned, section 9 of the Act vests that power in the District Magistrate with the approval of the Commissioner. The Act as originally enacted did not contain the proviso which was inserted in the Act by Bihar Act 8 of 1976. The proviso provides that rule relating to public auction shall not apply in the case of settlement with any agency or unit of the Govt. of India or the State Government. Such settlements have to be made on the terms and conditions specified by the State Government. Subsequently, by an amendment brought by Bihar Act 6 of 1988, apart from the agencies of the State and the Central Government, a Boatmens' Cooperative Society duty registered under the Bihar and Orissa Cooperative Society Act 1935 having jurisdiction to operate in the area where the ferry is situated, was also included. Subsequently, by an amendment brought by Bihar Act 6 of 1988, apart from the agencies of the State and the Central Government, a Boatmens' Cooperative Society duty registered under the Bihar and Orissa Cooperative Society Act 1935 having jurisdiction to operate in the area where the ferry is situated, was also included. It is, therefore, apparent that the tolls of any public ferry may be leased by public auction by the District Magistrate, or the settlement may be made with any State or Central Government agency or unit of with a Boatmens Cooperative Society duly registered, without resorting to the procedure of public auction. The lease in favour of any such body bas to be made on the terms and conditions to be specified by the State Government. 7. It is well settled that an authority exercising statutory functions must act in accordance with the provisions of the statute which vests him, the power which he seeks to exercise. The statutory authority must seek guidance for his action from the provisions of the Act itself, and should not be guided by any consideration which can be said to be extraneous. I have referred to the powers vested in the District Magistrate in regard to the public ferries, and it goes without saying that he must exercise those powers in accordance with the Act and the rules, and. not on the dictates of any authority not recognised by the Act. In the instant case it was alleged that the settlement was made with the Cooperative Society on the dictate of the Chief Minister, and the District Magistrate exercised his power machanically without having regard to the provisions of the Act. It is not necessary for me to examine the factual aspect of the litigation, but I have no doubt that if in a case it is established that the District Magistrate without having regard to the provisions of the Act, has exercised his power under the Act on the dictate of an outside authority, such action must be quashed solely on the ground that the power has been exercised on extraneous consideration. Where the statute casts a duty upon the statutory authority to act in a particular manner, he must act in that manner alone, and his action must find justification from the provisions of the Act. Where the statute casts a duty upon the statutory authority to act in a particular manner, he must act in that manner alone, and his action must find justification from the provisions of the Act. If he seeks guidance from an authority not empowered to issue directions to him, his action must be held to be illegal. Under the Act and the rules, the solo control of the ferries vests in the District Magistrate subject to the directions of the Commissioner. It follows therefore, that the State Govt. cannot give directions to the District Magistrate in the matter of exercise of power vested in the District Magistrate by the Act. The same principle will apply in regard to the leasing out of public ferries. No doubt, in a case where the District Magistrate decides to settle the lease in favour of the Govt. agency or unit or a Co operative Society, it is not necessary to hold a public auction. But the decision to settle with a Govt. agency or with a Cooperative Society must be his decision which must have the approval of the Commissioner and not the decision of any other authority. The view which I have taken is amply supported by decisions reported in AIR 1953, Pat. 370 and AIR 1957 Calcutta 98. The same view has been reiterated in 1989 BBCJ 313 . I have no doubt that in future the District Magistrate will act in accordance with the provisions of the Act and not on any extraneous consideration. When he acts in exercise of authority under the Act, he must find justification for the action from the provisions of the Act itself. He must not seek guidance from any authority, except those mentioned in the Act. 8. The second aspect of the matter is with regard to the definition of the limits of public ferries. In the instant case it is not in dispute that there were large number of ferries on the rivers Ganga and Kosi within the District of Katihar on the northern bank and the District of Santhal Parganas (now Sahebganj) on the southern bank. This group of ferries numbering about 180 is commonly described as Sahebganj Manihari Group of Ferries. By notification dated 27.2.1979 the Govt. This group of ferries numbering about 180 is commonly described as Sahebganj Manihari Group of Ferries. By notification dated 27.2.1979 the Govt. of Bihar in exercise of power conferred by clause (a) of Section 6 of the Act declared those ferries to be public ferries, with the provision to operate them with power craft as well. It was further declared that the head quarters shall be situated within the District of Santhal Parganas, and control was vested in the Deputy Commissioner, Santhal Parganas. The ferries were to be managed together in a group with the Sakri Rampur Samdanala Public Ferry. The said notification also provided the Schedule of limits of the Sahebganj Manihari group of public ferries. According to the petitioner no difficulty was experienced because the limits of the public ferries were defined by the notification, and there was therefore no occasion for any dispute. However, by a decision published in the gazette on 5.10.1990 the Commissioner of the Division sought to split up the aforesaid group into 180 separate public ferries. Unfortunately, the notification did not clearly specify the limits of each public ferry with the result that though the public ferries have been given a name, it is not known as to what are their limits, and which are the points on either side of the river which are connected by such public ferries. It is, therefore, difficult to give effect to the provisions of the Act in the absence of such definition. The State Govt. bas failed to perform its duty under section 6 (d) of the Act. It is not necessary for us to go into any greater details on this aspect of the matter, because it appears from the record that appropriate directions have already been issued by this Court on earlier occasion as well. Annexure 3 is an order of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 6175 of 1990 dated 20th Sept., 1990. From the judgment of this Court it appears that the petitioner was aggrieved by the fact that though an auction notice had been issued for settlement of public ferries, the details, including the definition of the public ferries, had not been furnished. Annexure 3 is an order of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 6175 of 1990 dated 20th Sept., 1990. From the judgment of this Court it appears that the petitioner was aggrieved by the fact that though an auction notice had been issued for settlement of public ferries, the details, including the definition of the public ferries, had not been furnished. This Court having regard to the fact that the public auction had been fixed in the month of October 1990, directed the petitioner to appear before the Deputy Commissioner Sahebganj who was directed to furnish the limits of the ferries in question to the petitioner before the auction was held. From annexure 5 it appears that petitioner in the instant writ petition, had earlier approached this Court by a writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 1494/91 which was disposed of by order dated 9.4.1991. Again the same grievance was made and similar order was passed. The judgment of this Court notices the submission of the State that steps had already been taken to define the limits of the public ferries. 9. Apart from these two orders of this Court there is also on record the order of the Commissioner of the division which is annexure 14 to the writ application. In that order the Commissioner considered the question regarding definition of the public ferries and noticed that in the changed situation, on account of declaration of 180 ferry ghats as separate units for management and control, it was essential to fix the boundary of each ferry ghat keeping in mind the provisions of section 16 of the Bengal Ferries Act, 1885. He has considered at length the various difficulties that may arise if the limits of the public ferries are not defined. He, therefore, directed the District Magistrate-cum-Deputy Commissioner Sahebganj to frame a complete picture of all the ferry ghats falling within the boundary of the Sahebganj. Manihari group of public ferries and after fixing the boundaries of each ferry ghat submit the same to the Divisional Commissioner at the earliest, so that necessary approval may be given for settlement of remaining unsettled ferry ghats which have to be settled. He considered it to be necessary to remove the. confusion prevailing in respect of the settlement of these ferry ghats. I need not repeat all the reasons given by the Commissioner in his order annexure 14 dated 18.7.1991. He considered it to be necessary to remove the. confusion prevailing in respect of the settlement of these ferry ghats. I need not repeat all the reasons given by the Commissioner in his order annexure 14 dated 18.7.1991. It cannot be disputed that unless the limits of the public ferries, which are sought to managed as separate units, are clearly defined, it would be difficult to give effect to the provisions of the Act Apart from the disputes that may arise frequently and the law and order problem that it may create, the mandate of the law must be obeyed. If the Act requires the State Govt. to define the limits of the public ferries, there is no reason why the State Government should not define the limits. For one reason or the other the Govt. has been dragging its feet. No doubt the demarcation of the limits of each individual public ferry may involve considerable time and effort, but that should have been done in view of earlier orders of this Court and the order of the Commissioner as contained in annexure 14 of the writ application. We are informed that so far this has not been done. It is difficult to imagine how an intending settlee can bid at a public auction, or take the settlement otherwise, unless all the different ferries are defined by reference to their limits. In the absence of such definition of limits there may be disputes inter-se between the different lessees of public ferries. At the same time other person in the locality who are prohibited from maintaining a private ferry within two miles from the limits of public ferries may be penalised for committing breach of section 16 of the Act without even furnishing the limits of the public ferries. I have, therefore, no doubt that the limits of the public ferries which are sought to be settled separately, must first be clearly defined in accordance with the provisions of Act before an auction is held or before such public ferries are sought to be leased out to any person or body otherwise. I, therefore, direct the State of Bihar to first define the limits of the public ferries in question, and notify the definition in terms of section 6 of the Act. I, therefore, direct the State of Bihar to first define the limits of the public ferries in question, and notify the definition in terms of section 6 of the Act. Only thereafter the respondent shall take steps either to hold public acution for leasing out such public ferries, or settle the same in accordance with the proviso to section 9 of the Act. If a settlement is sought to be made under the proviso to section 9 of the Act, in addition to the definition of the limits, the terms and conditions on which such settlements are to be made, must also be notified the State Govt. before the settlement is made. I direct the respondents not to hold auction of the public ferries in question except after complying with the directions contained in this order. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the Commissioner Santhal Pargana and District Magistrate-cum-Deputy Commissioner, Sahebganj for compliance. With these observations and directions this writ petition is disposed of. There will be no order as to costs. S. K. Chattopadhyaya, J.-I agree