Judgment S. B. Sinha, R. N. Prasad, JJ. 1. The petitioner no.1 is a Co-operative society registered under the Bihar Co-operative Societies Act and takes settlements of the ferry ghats situated within the area of operation. According to the petitioners in terms of Sec.97 of the Bengal Ferries Act, preference has got to be given to the Co-operative Society in the matter of settlement of ghats. 2. The six ghats in question has been settled with the petitioners society. According to the petitioners they had filed a remission-petition on 19.12.1992 in respect of rupees fifty-four thousands eight hundred and deposited ten per cent of the remission fee. They further filed an application for remission of rupees sixteen thousands. 3. The Additional Collector, however, directed the petitioners to deposit a sum of Rs 60,354 which was allegedly due for the year 1992-93. The petitioners have contended that the society cannot be treated as a defaulter unless its claim for remission is decided. 4. Upon the aforementioned application for remission, a report was called for by the Commissioner from the Deputy Commissioner, Sahebganj and in his report it was stated that no meeting of the screening committee could be held and as such, the petifioners remission-application had been dismissed. 5. The petitioners revision-application filed against the order passed by the Collector being revision Misc case no.5 of 1993 has also been dismissed on the ground that the petitioner Society is a defaulter and his remission application had been rejected. 6. An application has been filed on behalf of the petitioners wherein, it has been stated that despite the order of this Court dated 8.7.1993, the petitioners had not been served with a copy of the order of rejection of the remission-application although a prayer in that regard was made by the petitioners. 7. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent no.5 wherein it has inter alia been contended that the petitioners application for remission was mala fide as after it became a defaulter, an offer was made by respondent no.4 on 3.3.1993 and having come to learn about the same, a remission application was filed on 4.4.1993. 7. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent no.5 wherein it has inter alia been contended that the petitioners application for remission was mala fide as after it became a defaulter, an offer was made by respondent no.4 on 3.3.1993 and having come to learn about the same, a remission application was filed on 4.4.1993. It has been contended that the grounds taken in the remission application are wholly non-existent as would be evident from Aunexure A to the counter-affidavit inasmuch, as the reason for claiming in support of the remission was that the authorities of the West Bengal Government had not allowed them to take the ferry within their territory but the same is falsified by the report submitted by the District Magistrate Malda to the Deputy commissioner, Sahibganj. It has further been submitted that the petitioners are a chronic defaulter inasmuch as it has also not paid the amount of fee, i. e. Rs.85,000/- for the earlier year. 8. Mr. Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners however, submitted that the bid was wrongly held as the petitioners were directed to deposit a reserve Jama of Rs, 1,56,000/-. It has further been submitted that even the amount deposited by the petitioners is not being refunded without disposing of the petitioners application for remission, 9. The facts mentioned hereinbefore, depicts a sordid state of affairs. It is unfortunate that the State has not filed a counter-affidavit although this writ application was filed on 9.6.1993 and two adjournments has been granted. 10. Even, in view of the order dated 8.7.1993, passed by this Court, the petitioner has not been supplied with a copy of the order of rejection of the application for remission. 11. There cannot be any doubt whatsoever that unless the application for remission is disposed of by the competent authority, the society cannot be said to be a defaulter. This position of law is clear from the order dated 4.10.1983 passed by this Court in C. W. J. C. No.3020 of 1983 and 31.7.1989 passed in C. W J C. No.2162 of 1979. The said orders are contained in Annexures 4 and 4/a to the writ application. It is really strange that the petitioners application was purported to have been rejected although the screening committee did not hold its meeting. The said orders are contained in Annexures 4 and 4/a to the writ application. It is really strange that the petitioners application was purported to have been rejected although the screening committee did not hold its meeting. The State Government and/or screening committee evidently cannot take advantage of its own wrong. 12. As indicated hereinbefore, as the State has also not filed any counter affidavit, there is nothing on the record to show why the screening committee did not hold its meeting and as to on what basis the petitioners application for remission has been rejected. 13. In this situation, the order passed by the Commissioner, Santhal parganas division as contained in Annexure 1 to the writ application can not be sustained. He is directed to consider the matter afresh and if necessary may direct the screening committee to supply a certified copy of the order to the petitioners and pass an appropriate order upon consideration of the order of rejection of the petitioners application for remission, if any. He is also directed to see that in future no person operating the ferries within his division suffers owing to act of omissions on the part of the statutory authorities. 14. The authorities acting under the Bengal Ferries Act are the statutory authorities and thus they are bound to perform their duties within the four corners of the statute. They must also act reasonably and fairly. However, in view of the fact that respondent no 4 already started operating the ferries in question from 19 4.1993 and further in view of the fact that the petitioner is guilty of some delay and laches on its part as it should have filed the application for remission on 19.12.1992, we are not interfering with the settlement made in favour of the respondent no.4 for the year in question. However, it goes without saying that the authorities concerned shall dispose of the petitioners application for remission and pass an appropriate order within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 15. In the event of petitioners success in the remission-application, the excess amount deposited by the petitioners with the authorities concerned must be directed to be refunded within two months thereafter with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of deposit of the amount till the actual payment. 16. 15. In the event of petitioners success in the remission-application, the excess amount deposited by the petitioners with the authorities concerned must be directed to be refunded within two months thereafter with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of deposit of the amount till the actual payment. 16. This application is disposed of with the aforementioned observations and directions. Application Allowed.