Subodh Mandal v. State Of Bihar — 1995 DIGILAW 483 (PAT)

Judgment B. P. Singh, I. P. Singh, JJ. 1. These three matters are tied up matters which have been heard together and, therefore, are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The petitioner in C. W. J. C. No.5948 of 1994 Neelam Kumar Sinha (hereinafter referred to as the petitioners) claims to be the Secretary of the Passengers Association having its office at Adampur Ghat in the district of Bhagalpur. He has filed the aforesaid writ petition as a public interest litigation, representing the cause of the passengers who are the beneficiary of the ferry service between Kahalgaon-Tintanga Ghat. He is aggrieved by the fact that the lessee has not provided adequate number of vessels in accordance with the lease deed for plying between the two Ghats, with the result that large number of passengers are forced to travel by country boats, exposing them to serious risk to life, particularly during the rainy season. M. J. C. No.1289 of 1994 is an application filed by the petitioner for initiating action under the Contempt of Courts Act against the State of Bihar the District magistrate, Bhagalpur and the Regional Inspector General of Police, Bhagalpur, for not complying with the orders passed by this Court in C. W. J. C. No.5948 of 1994. C. W. J. C. No.2400 of 1995 is a writ petition filed by one Subodh Mandal, who is the lessee in question, and who has prayed for modification of the lease document. His case is that instead of a steamer with seating capacity of 200, the lease deed should be corrected to provide that a steamer with seating capacity of 100 persons only is to be provided by the lessee. The aforesaid subodh Manda! shall hereinafter be referred to as the lessee. 3. Under Sec.6 of the Bengal Ferries Act, 1885 the State Government has been vested with the power to declare what ferries shall be deemed public ferries and the respective districts in which, for the purpose of the Act, they shall be deemed to be situated. It has also power to establish new public ferries, define the limits of any public ferry, change its course and to discontinue any public ferry which it deems necessary. Under Sec.7 of the Act the control of all public ferries are vested in the Magistrate of the district subject to the direction of the commissioner. Sec.9 enable the Govt. It has also power to establish new public ferries, define the limits of any public ferry, change its course and to discontinue any public ferry which it deems necessary. Under Sec.7 of the Act the control of all public ferries are vested in the Magistrate of the district subject to the direction of the commissioner. Sec.9 enable the Govt. to lease by auction ferry tolls. It provides that the tolls of any public ferry may, from time to time, be leased by public auction for such term as the Magistrate of the district in which such ferry is situated may, with the approval of the Commissioner, direct. The lessee of the tolls of every ferry which have been leased under this section are required to execute a contract setting forth the conditions of which the tolls of such ferry are to be held, and shall give security for its due fulfilment. Sec.10 commands the leasee, and every servant of the lessee, to be bound to conform to rules made under the act for the management and control of such ferry. Sec.16 of the Act provides that no person shall, except with the sanction of the magistrate of the district, maintain a ferry to or from any point within a distance to two miles from the limits of a public ferry. Power to reduce the said distance of two miles has been vested in the state Government. But the proviso makes it clear that this does not prevent persons keeping boats to ply between two places, one of which is without and one within the said limits, when the distance between two such places is not less than three miles 4. In the writ petition filed by the petitioner the case of the petitioner is that the District Magistrate of Bhagalpur issued an advertisement in the District Gazette informing members of the public that the Tintangaghat Public Ferry within the district of bhagalpur was to be settled for the period 1.10.93 to 30.9.96. An open public auction was to be held on 10.9.93. On the basis of reserved Jama of the last year, the intending bidders were required to deposit a sum of Rs.33,500/- before taking part in the bid. An open public auction was to be held on 10.9.93. On the basis of reserved Jama of the last year, the intending bidders were required to deposit a sum of Rs.33,500/- before taking part in the bid. they were also required to give in writing together with proof, at least three days before the date of the auction, that they were in a position to ply two steamers with seating capacity of 200 (two hundred) each and for the four months of the rainy season one steamer with the seating capacity of 300), together with a certificate from the chief Surveyor of Inland Steam Vessels. The conditions of the lease provided that the lessee must have two steamers with seating capacity of two hundred each and during the four months of the rainy season, at least one steamer of seating capacity of 300, duly certified by Chief Surveyor, Inland steam Vessels. These steamers were to be well equipped so that the passengers had no inconvenience while travelling in such steamers. The lessee was also directed to keep 22 big boats with his two steamers for the purposes-mainly of carrying goods, vehicles and animal. There are other conditions mentioned in the document, but it is not necessary to refer to all of them. We may only notice that the time table has to be fixed by the District Magistrate so that the steamers may make at last two trips, up and down every day before sunset. In special circumstances, such as sudden increase in traffic he may direct the lesee to carry four trips. The rate of the toll was to be fixed by the District Magistrate and approved by the commissioner. The lessee whose bid was accepted, was required to execute the agreement within three weeks. The case of the petitioner is that such a lease is granted to lessees with a view to provide facilities to the members of the travelling public using the ferry. Having regard to the volume of traffic and other relevant circumstances, the number of steamers with their respective seating capacity is assessed by the district authorities. Thereafter an advertisement is issued and the lease granted to one of the bidders. 5. The grievance of the petitioner is that though an agreement has been executed on 19.10.93, the same is not in according with the terms and conditions advertised by the District Magistrate. Thereafter an advertisement is issued and the lease granted to one of the bidders. 5. The grievance of the petitioner is that though an agreement has been executed on 19.10.93, the same is not in according with the terms and conditions advertised by the District Magistrate. cording to the advertisement, the lesee was required to produce two steamers of 200 seating capacity each, and during the rainy season of four months one steamer with seating capacity of 300 (three hundred ). The petitioner asserts that instead of complying with the terms and conditions of the lease, the lessee never produced a single steamer and is earring passengers in country boats fitted with motors locally manufactured. In the absence of proper ferry service passenger are compelled to travel by such country boats exposing themselves to serious danger to life. Several incidents have taken place in that area when large number of persons have lost their lives in the mid stream. In fact, to prevent such things from happening, the secretary in the Department of Transport wrote to the District Magistrate, Bhagalpur on 16th April, 1994, that several complaints have been received from local citizens that country boats being operated by motors were being plied in unauthorised manner in the absence of settlement of Kahalgaon-Tintanga Ghat Public Ferry. In the past also the Department had received complaints about such unauthorised plying of country boats resulting in mishaps. The Inland water-ways Authority, Government of India, in its enquiry report had found that the main reason for such accidents was the unauthorised plying of country boats without obtaining technical concurrence. In the past also a request had been made for stopping the plying of such boats, but the plying of such boats had been on the increase. In these circumstances, the District Magistrate was directed to take suitable steps to stop the plying of such country boats so as to avoid accidents. A similar letter was written to him again on 10th April, 1994. These two letters have been annexed as Annexures 3 and 4. It appears that the Transport Secretary, perhaps, was not aware of the fact that in the meantime, lease had been executed with the lessee on 9th October, 1993. That, however, is not very material, but what is significant is the fact that the Govt. These two letters have been annexed as Annexures 3 and 4. It appears that the Transport Secretary, perhaps, was not aware of the fact that in the meantime, lease had been executed with the lessee on 9th October, 1993. That, however, is not very material, but what is significant is the fact that the Govt. was aware of the fact that large number of country boats fitted with motors were being plied on the river Ganges between Kahalgaon and tintanga Ghat, despite the fact that there was a public ferry and proper service should have been provided to such passengers. The plying of country boats had resulted in accidents and valuable lives were lost in such accidents. There was need, therefore, to check the unauthorised plying of country boats. In the context of these letters, the petitioner submitted that despite the execution agreement by the lesee, since proper service was not being rendered, as the lessee had failed to provide even one steamer, the interest of the travelling public suffered and they were forced to cross the river in country boats with motors fitted in them. The allegation of the petitioner is that it was the lessee who provided such country boats rather than providing proper steamers for carrying passengers. In these circumstances it is prayed that the respondents be directed to stop the carriage of passengers in country boats, and the authorities be directed to cancel the lease granted to the lessee and to grant the lease to a proper person who could provide vessels duly certified by the Surveyor. 6. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the District magistrate, Bhagalpur (respondent no.2) it has been submitted that it was wrong to say that country boats were being plied to carry passengers across the river. It is asserted that the lessee has provided steamer for carrying passengers, and the country boats are used only for carrying goods, vehicles and animals. The genuineness of the passengers association has been challenged and it is stated that even the petitioner is not known to any one in the locality. There has been no complaint to the authority about the service rendered by the lessee. It is also asserted that one duly certified mechanised steamer with seating capacity of 100 has been put into service by the lessee. There has been no complaint to the authority about the service rendered by the lessee. It is also asserted that one duly certified mechanised steamer with seating capacity of 100 has been put into service by the lessee. The lessee has been asked to put into service another steamer with the requisite capacity, and he has been told that if he does not do so, the lease in his favour may be cancelled. 7. The lessee has also filed a counter affidavit stating that this writ petition has been filed malafide with a view to defeat the rights of the lessee. There are certain vested interests who are aggrieved by the grant of lease in favour of the lessee. Several litigations are initiated by such vested interests only to disturb the working of the lessee. It is asserted that the lessee has put into service one duly certified steamer with seating capacity of 100 which makes six trips botn ways every day. On an average 40-50 passengers are carried in each trip. He has asserted that he has made arrangement for putting into service another steamer. The passengers have never made a grievance against the quality of service rendered by the lessee. It is further asserted that the machanised boats are used only for carrying cattle, goods etc. and the lessee has not put into service any mechanised boat for the purpose of carrying passengers. 8. In the supplementary affidvait filed on behalf of respondent no.3 on 6th April, 1995 some more details have been furnished. It has been stated that on the date of auction for settlement of the Tintanga ghat Ferry, three persons ultimately partticipated in the bid, but out of then only the petitioner had deposited the sum of Rs.33,500/- within the stipulated period. The other two had not deposited the amount within the period specified and they should mot have been permitted to take part in the bid. However, the District Magistrate with a view to encourage competition permitted them to participate in the bid. It was found that none of the bidders could furnish documentary evidence to satisfy the authorities that they could produce two steamers of 200 capacity each and, therefore, it became apparent that strict insistence on the number of steamers with requisite passenger capacity may not be possible, and it may cause inconvenience to the public as also loss of revenue. It was found that none of the bidders could furnish documentary evidence to satisfy the authorities that they could produce two steamers of 200 capacity each and, therefore, it became apparent that strict insistence on the number of steamers with requisite passenger capacity may not be possible, and it may cause inconvenience to the public as also loss of revenue. The lessee had given certified documents in relation to vessels with seating capacity of 100, and 300 to be plied during the rainy seasons. Since the ferry was being settled for the first time through public auction, the condition for production of two steamers of 200 capacity each was based on rough estimation of the requirement. In the circumstances, it was proposed to relax the requirement with regard to the seating capacity of steamers, and a proposal to this effect was to be got approved by the Commissioner, who was the competent authority under the Bengal Ferries Act. At the bid the lessees highest bid of Rs.2,76,000/- was accepted and he deposited the same. It is the case of the lessee that the Commissioner, Bhagalpur, vide his letter dated 30th september, 1993, granted approval to the proposal for relaxation of the condition with regard to the carrying capacity of the steamers. It is also the case of the lessee that in the lease document, however, by mistake the seating capacity has been mentioned as 200, instead of 100. There is really no need of two steamers with seating capacity of 200 each, because experience has shown that even one steamer with seating capacity of 100 making six trips up and down each day, carries an average of 40-50 passengers in one trip. Consequently there has been no complaint from any quarters about the insufficiency of the ferry service or about inconvenience caused to the passengers. 9. A further supplementary affidavit was filed on behalf of the lessee on 11.7.1995. In the said affidavit it has been explained that with effect from 21.1.1995, for the annual overhauling and maintenance of the steamer, the steamer was out of operation. Such maintenance/repair was possible only in the month of April because in that month the water level in the river is low. The lessee had duly intimated the Collector on 22.4.1995 as also the B. D. O. and the Officer-in-Charge, Kahalgaon and Gopalpur P. S. about the same. Such maintenance/repair was possible only in the month of April because in that month the water level in the river is low. The lessee had duly intimated the Collector on 22.4.1995 as also the B. D. O. and the Officer-in-Charge, Kahalgaon and Gopalpur P. S. about the same. He has annexed annexure d, the intimation sent to the Collector on 22.4.95. After annual maintenance, the steamer again began operation w. e. f.21.5.1995 and this fact was duly communicated to the collector, Bhagalpur and other authorities. It has, therefore, been explained that when the District Judge came on inspection to tintanga Ghat on 26.4.1995, the lessee showed him the steamer which was under annual maintenance and informed him that it would start operating after the annual maintenance operation. During the period the steamer was under annual maintenance, the lessee did not carry any passenger across the river. Only cattle, fodder and persons accompanying the cattle were at times carried in boats across the river. The lessee has given a list of persons, and had averred that there are many persons in the area in question who operate big boats fitted with motors which carry 50-100 persons on an average. The lessee has not provided any country boat fitted with motors for carrying passengers nor the lessee has any concern with other persons carrying passengers across the river in country boats fitted with motors. Even when the District Judge had gone to the Ghat for inspection, no one had complained to him that the lessee was carrying passengers across the river in country boats. In fact, the lessee has purchased the steamer with the name of "ma Bhuvaneshwari" at a cost of Rs.2,30,000/-. 10. It has been further explained by the lessee that at the time of the settlement the lessee had a valid Surveyors certificate which was valid till 15.9.94. Even before its expiry, the lessee filed an application for revalidation of the certificate in accordance with law. On 24.8.94 the Chief Surveyor wrote to the Vessel Inspector at Bhagalpur to immediately undertake survey and submit a report to the Chief Surveyor at Rosera. A reminder dated 14.11.94, followed by another reminder dated 18.5.1995 was sent, but unfortunately no survey had been done till date by the authorities at Bhagalpur. On 24.8.94 the Chief Surveyor wrote to the Vessel Inspector at Bhagalpur to immediately undertake survey and submit a report to the Chief Surveyor at Rosera. A reminder dated 14.11.94, followed by another reminder dated 18.5.1995 was sent, but unfortunately no survey had been done till date by the authorities at Bhagalpur. The lessee therefore pleads that he has done all that he was expected to do for getting surveyors certificate validated, but the matter is pending with the concerned authorities despite repeated reminders. 11. In M. J. C. No.1289 of 1994 the petitioner has made a grievance that the district Magistrate was wilfully flouting the order of this Court made on 28.7.1994. It will appear that by order dated 28.7.1994 it was directed, with the consent of the parties, that pending further orders country boats fitted with engine or not shall not carry passengers and the passengers shall be transported only by steamers having valid Surveyors certificate under the Indian vessels Act. The complaint was against the district Magistrate and Inspector General of police, because it was alleged that the District Magistrate had been wilfully flouting the order of this court by allowing country boats fitted with engines to carry passengers across the river ganga from Kahalgaon Ghat. Despite production of a copy of the Courts order, the District Magistrate took no notice. It was stated that the river ganga was already in floods and the apprehension of the petitioner was that unauthorised carrying of passengers in country boats may result in mishaps and lead to loss of human lives. The apprehension of the petitioner had come true because from the news report it appears that five persons including three women were drowned in the river in two different boat mishaps. It was, therefore, prayed by the petitioner that the order of this Court should be implemented by the District Magistrate and that suitable orders may be passed preventing carrying of passengers in country boats with or without motor engines. It was alleged that the Collector was continuing to illegally help the lessee by not forcing the lessee to ply steamers as per the agreement executed between the Collector and the lessee. It was alleged that the Collector was continuing to illegally help the lessee by not forcing the lessee to ply steamers as per the agreement executed between the Collector and the lessee. The allegation is that the lessee has not placed any steamer into service and he has been carrying passengers in country boats from Kahalgaon to tintanga Ghat in violation of the lease agreement and the provisions of the Indian vessels Act, as also the order of this Court. It is worth noticing that the petitioner is not one of the opposite parties in the contempt application. 12. In the contempt matter notice was issued to the District Magistrate. The order of this Court dated 28.7.1994 to which reference has been made earlier, and the order dated 29.9.94, were comounicated to the regional Inspector General of Police at bhagalpur with a direction to see to it that the orders are implemented. In the order of this Court dated 29.9.94 there was clear direction to the lessee not to carry human passsenger in any other vessel except a steamer. Counsel for the lessee stated that the lessee was not carrying human passengers in the mechanically propelled country boat and was only carrying cattle and goods in such boats. By the said order, an exception was made in favour of persons accompanying the cattle transported by boats. By order dated 5.1.94 the Regional inspector General of Police, Bhagalpur was also directed to see to it that the orders of this Court are implemented, because the petitioner made a grievance that neither the (police administration nor the district administration took the orders of this Court seriously, and large number of country boats were being plied in the river carrying passengers. At one stage when the existence of the passengers was challenged, this Court directed the petitioner to appear before this Court in person and the petitioner did appear before this Court in person on 6th February, 1995. On that day, however, the counsel for the lessee was not present and, therefore, there was nothing to persuade this Court to hold that the petitioner was a fictitious person. 13. This Court was, however, not at all happy with the manner in which the orders of this Court were being implemented, and this was recorded in the order of this Court dated 6th Febreary, 1995 in the contempt matter. 13. This Court was, however, not at all happy with the manner in which the orders of this Court were being implemented, and this was recorded in the order of this Court dated 6th Febreary, 1995 in the contempt matter. An impression was created that by refusing to place sufficient number of steamers with requisite seating capacity, the lessee was carrying passengers in country boats, and the District Magistrate had acquired a favourable attitude towards the lessee. It also appeared from the report of the Inspector General, Annexure 11 in the contempt matter, that even he had received information that passengers were being carried by country boats in the Bararimahadeopur Ghat area. The order of this court was being disobeyed openly. He, therefore, requested the Superintendent of police, Bhagalpur, to immediately stop the carriage of passengers by country boats so that the order of the High Court was obeyed. The letter of the Inspector General, bhagalpur, dated 30th November, 1994 supports the case of the petitioner that despite several order of this Court passengers were being carried, and are being carried, in country boats in an unauthorised manner exposing them to grave risk to life. Ultimately this Court by order dated 24.3.95 directed the District Judge, Bhagalpur, to make an enquiry and submit a report to this court as to whether the orders of this Court were being obeyed, and whether passengers were being carried in country boats fitted with motors across the river. The earlier orders passed by this Court in the mattef were also sent to the District Judge so that he could appreciate the points on which he had to make an enquiry and submit his report. The District Judge, Bhagalpur, visited the spot and has submitted a report to this Court which is dated 26th April, 1995. From his report it appears that on 25.4.95 at about 3.30 p. m. when he visited barari Ghat, he found seven country boats fitted with motors parked at the said Ghat. Tickets were being issued to the passengers for going to the other side of the river. A country boat fitted with motor which was ready for departure, had about 70 passengers sitting in it. On enquiry from the employees of the private contractor he was told that such passengers were being carried in country boats since no steamer was then available. A country boat fitted with motor which was ready for departure, had about 70 passengers sitting in it. On enquiry from the employees of the private contractor he was told that such passengers were being carried in country boats since no steamer was then available. He also learnt that the other 11 country boats fitted with motors parked there were also meant for carrying passengers across the river, He, however, found one steamer attached with a bridge standing at Barari Ghat. That steamer belonged to one Shri Ratnesh Narain Singh, whose other steamer was parked on the other side of the river. He also visited Kahalgaon-Tintanga ghat on 26.4.95 at about 7 a. m. and found several boats parked at the ghat. Amongst them six were fitted with motors. He noticed one country boat fitted with motor coming towards the Ghat carrying about 70 passengers. He did no find any boat carrying cattle. He made enquiries from the persons present at the Ghat and was told that presently no steamer was being operated by the private contractor. At that time a person appeared and disclosed his name as Subodh Mandal, the lessee. He admitted that the steamer operated by him earlier was under repair and there was no steamer presently being operated by him. He admitted that country boats fitted with motors were being used for carrying passengers. The District Judge, therefore, came to the conclusion that both at Bararii ghat as well as Kahalgaon-Tintanga Ghat country boats fitted with moters were being used for carrying passengers across the river. 14. In C. W. J. C. No.2400 of 1994, the lessee is the petitioner and he has filed the aforesaid writ petition praying that the respondents be commanded to correct the lease deed executed in favour of the petitioner on 19.10.93 by changing the seating capacity of his steamer from 200 to 100. This claim has been made on the basis of the fact that the Addl. Collector while proposing the settlement to the District magistrate had recommended that necessary approval of the Commissioner may be sought to relax the condition with regard to number of steamers and seating capacity thereof. This claim has been made on the basis of the fact that the Addl. Collector while proposing the settlement to the District magistrate had recommended that necessary approval of the Commissioner may be sought to relax the condition with regard to number of steamers and seating capacity thereof. It is the case of the lessee that, in fact, such approval of the Commissioner was sought and granted and, therefore, in view of the Commissioners approval, the petitioner was required to put into service only one steamer with seating capacity of 100. By mistake, instead of 100, the seating capacity has been mentioned as 200. 15. From the facts noticed above it would be apparent that the advertisement which was published in the Gazette invited tenders from intending bidders who could operate the ferry by providing two steamers with seating capacity of 200 each, and at least one steamer with seating capacity of 300 during the four months of the rainy season. It is also not in dispute that for the three bidders who bid at the auction, one could produce document to show that he was in a position to put into service two steamers with seating capacity of 200 each and one steamer for a period of four months during the rainy season with capacity to carrying 300 passengers. The additional Collector in his report to the District Magistrate has mentioned that the ferry was being settled for the first time by public auction and, therefore, by estimation it was thought that at least two steamers with seating capacity of 200 each was required. He, however, suggested that the approval of the Commissioner may be obtained for relaxing this condition. It is, no doubt, true that the matter was ultimately referred to the Commissioner for his approval, but the letter of approval of the Commissioner is not to the effect that the lessee shall put into service only one steamer with seating capacity of 100, but is in general terms. It appears from the file which has been produced before us that agreeing with the proposal made by the authorities, the Commissioner agreed to relax the condition with regard to the seating capacity of the steamer. It appears from the file which has been produced before us that agreeing with the proposal made by the authorities, the Commissioner agreed to relax the condition with regard to the seating capacity of the steamer. However, the last sentence of the letter communicating this decision states that for relaxing the rule, the district authorities must seek the approval of the commissioner with regard to carrying capacity fixed by them. It, therefore, appears that though the Commissioner was in favour of the relaxation, so far as it related to carrying capacity of the steamer, he did not by his order fix the carrying capacity of the steamer which was required to be produced by the lessee. This was left to the district authorities, who were to obtain his approval in this regard after fixing the seating capacity. Admittedly, this was never done. The picture that emerges, therefore, is that in the advertisement the condition mentioned was that the lessee must be in a position to put into service two steamers with carrying capacity of 200 each and at least one steamer with carrying capacity of 300 during the four months of rainy season. In the agreement executed in favour of the lessee the condition mentioned is to the effect that the lessee shall produce one steamer of 200 seating capacity and also one steamer with seating capacity of 300 during the rainy season. In fact, if the case of the lessee and the district authorities is to be believed, the lessee has to put into service only one steamer with carrying capacity of 100. The lessee claims that in view of the proposal made by the district authorities and approved by the Commissioner, the carrying capacity should have been mentioned as 100 in the lease deed instead of 200, which has been entered by mistake. He has, therefore, filed a separate petition claiming this relief. We shall first of all dispose of the writ petition filed by the lessee. 16. The terms and conditions mentioned in the auction notice are different from the terms and conditions incorporated in the lease deed so far as they relate to the number of steamers to be put into service by the lessee and their carrying capacity. Infact, the lessee has placed only one steamer with seating capacity of 100. 16. The terms and conditions mentioned in the auction notice are different from the terms and conditions incorporated in the lease deed so far as they relate to the number of steamers to be put into service by the lessee and their carrying capacity. Infact, the lessee has placed only one steamer with seating capacity of 100. It would be difficult for a writ court to investigate all material facts with a view to ascertain as to what was the real agreement between the parties, and whether the condition mentioned in the registered lease deed does not correctly represent the agreement between the parties. This would involve investigation into questions of fact and, therefore, it would not be possible for this Court to go into this aspect of the matter. The lessee is, therefore, left to seek remedy before the appropriate forum, and we are told he has also moved the Commissioner in this regard. Nothing said in this order shall prejudice his claim. 17. So far as the contempt matter is concerned, no relief has been asked for against the lessee. The lessee is not an opposite party in the proceeding. Notices were issued to the District Magistrate and inspector General of Police. No doubt, they have asserted that they have not permitted the carrying of passengers by country boats. Having regard to the facts and cricumstances of the case, and the material placed before us, we are satisfied that even if they have made efforts, it has not produced the desired result. The report of the District Judge, Bhagalpur, appears to represent the correct state of affairs. It is true that during the period when he visited the Ghat, the steamer owned by the lessee was under annual repairs. In fact, counsel for the lessee submitted that it would not be in his interest, if passengers are allowed to be carried in country boats by others because that would adversely affect the earnings of the lessee. The lessee, therefore, will not encourage carriage of the passengers by boats. There is no material to substantiate the assertion that the lessee has been carrying passengers in country boats. It may be that there are many others who are carrying passengers in country boats in unauthorised manner, but for that the lessee can not be held responsible. The lessee, therefore, will not encourage carriage of the passengers by boats. There is no material to substantiate the assertion that the lessee has been carrying passengers in country boats. It may be that there are many others who are carrying passengers in country boats in unauthorised manner, but for that the lessee can not be held responsible. We, therefore, dispose of the contempt matter with a direction to the District Magistrate as well as to the police authorities of the district to strictly enforce the law and prevent any person from carrying passengers in country boats across the Ganges which comes within the area of the Kahalgaon Tintanga ghat Ferry. 18. We then come to the main writ petition which has been filed before this court in public interest. Counsel for the petitioner rightly submitted before us that in a public interest litigation, which is quite different from an adversary litigation, the petitioner is not so much interested in the legality of the lease granted in favour of the lessee. His primary interest is three fold; namely, the District Administration having failed to check the carriage of passengers by country boats across the river, they should be strictly directed to take appropriate action so that passengers carried in such country boats are not exposed to risk to their lives. He submitted that stern warning must be given to the District authorities to enforce the orders of this court rigorously. Secondly, the direction ot the court should not be flouted. A clear direction should be issued that no private country boats, whether fitted or not fitted with motors should be allowed to carry passengers between the Kahalgaon Tintanga ghat which is a part of a public ferry. Thirdly the contractor must be compelled to act in accordance with the agreement executed by him, ana the District Magistrate should be commanded to take appropriate action against the lessee, if he fails to comply with the requirements or the agreement, including cancellation of the lease. 19. It is not, therefore, necessary for us to go into the question as to whether the lease was properly granted in favour of the lessee, but all the same with a view to provide future guidance we are tempted to make some observations. 19. It is not, therefore, necessary for us to go into the question as to whether the lease was properly granted in favour of the lessee, but all the same with a view to provide future guidance we are tempted to make some observations. It is no doubt, true that under the Bengal Ferries Act the control of public ferries is vested in the District Magistrate subject to the direction of the Commissioner. However, in the matter of settlement of such ferry by public auction, certain norms have to be observed by public authorities. There should be no arbitrariness or unresonableness in settlement of such ferry which is done by public auction. The authorities must be aware of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Ramana Dayaram Shetty vrs. International Airport Authority of india and ors (A. I. R.1979 S. C.1628) and in the case of M/s G. J. Fernandaz vrs. State of Karnataka and ors (A. I. R.1990 s. C.958 ). When the auction notice provided that the intending bidders should produce documentary evidence to show that they were in a position to put into service two steamers with carrying capacity of 200 each and one steamer with carrying capacity of 300 during the rainy season and if thereafter it was considered necessary, having regard to the facts and circumstances, to relax this condition, the same should have been done by issuance of a fresh advertisement so that persons who may not have initially bid having regard to this condition, may submit their tender if they were able to fulfil the modified conditions mentioned in the fresh advertisement. Relaxation of an important condition of the auction without notice to those who may be eligible under the relaxed condition, is arbitrary and unreasonable. It appears that the district authorities, in the facts and circumstances of the case, were oblivious of the position in law. However, we are not passing any direction with regard to the lease already executed, because the lease was executed on 19th October, 1993 and the instant writ petition was filed in July, 1994 after almost nine months. The period of lease is 1st October, 1993 to 30th September, 1996. Thus out of three years of the terms of the lease, two years have already run out. The period of lease is 1st October, 1993 to 30th September, 1996. Thus out of three years of the terms of the lease, two years have already run out. On similar considerations the supreme Court in International Airport authoritys case did not grant relief to the petitioner. We have made this observation only with a view to guide the authorities in future. 20. We may also at this stage dispose of the other objection raised on behalf of the petitioner namely, that the lessee misrepresented by saying that the steamer which he had to provide had a valid surveyors certificate issued by the Chief surveyor, Inland Steam Vessels. We have noticed the relevant facts stated by the lessee in his supplementary affidavit, which facts have not been controverted. He has clearly asserted that on the date on which the had made the respresentation and on the date on which the steamer was put into service, there was a valid Surveyors certificate. In due course, the validity of the certificate expired by efflux of time, and it was nequired to be renewed/revalidated. So far as the lessee was concerned, even before the expiry of the certificate on 15.9.94, he had applied for its renewal/revalidation on 24.8.94. This was followed by reminders. If the concerned authorities have failed to survey the vessel and to grant the necessary certificate, the lessee can not be blamed. There is substance in the plea of the lessee because after he has made an application within the period prescribed, it is for the authorities to take necessary steps and grant or refuse the certificate prayed for. 21. The question then arises as to whether the petitioner has been able to satisfy this court that whoever be responsible, passengers are being carried in country boats even within the prohibited distance of the public ferry under the Bengal Ferries Act. The assertion that such carriage of passengers in country boats is taking place appears to be substantiated by documentary evidence on record. There are two letters of the Secretary of the Department of Transport, annexure 3 and 4 which mention about the carriage of passengers in country boats. The Secretary, Transport, in fact, directed the District Magistrate to see to it that passengers are not carried in country boats across the river. There are two letters of the Secretary of the Department of Transport, annexure 3 and 4 which mention about the carriage of passengers in country boats. The Secretary, Transport, in fact, directed the District Magistrate to see to it that passengers are not carried in country boats across the river. There is also a letter of the Inspector General of Police, to which we have referred earlier, which in clear terms mentions that the order of the high Court is being disobeyed by carriage of passengers in country boats and that this should be stopped. Lastly we have the report of the District Judge who himself visited Tintanga Ghat and found passengers being carried in country boats. It may be that on the date he visited the Ghat, the steamer provided by the lessee, was under annual maintenance, but we have the impression supported by the materials on record that the carriage of passengers in country boats was not limited to the period during which the vessel of the lessee was under repair. It appears that the carriage of passengers in country boats is rampant and the local administration is perhaps indifferent towards it. We can not lose sight of the fact that several accidents take place when such boats capsize it mid stream. No doubt there is nothing to show that the lessee is guilty of carrying passengers in country boats, but at the same time if the lessee provides good and adequate service, that may discourage passengers from travelling in country boats. 22. In these circumstances we dispose of the writ petition filed by the petitioner with the following directions : (i) The district authorities, including the district Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police, Bhagalpur are commanded to see to it that within the prohibited area of a public ferry such as Kahalgaon-Tintanga ghat ferry no passengers are carried in country boats across the river Ganges in view of the provisions of the Bengal Ferries act and the law. The district authorities shall keep constant check at strategic points with a view to take appropriate action against the person who indulge in carrying passengers in country boats within the prohibited area. They are further directed to take appropriate legal action against all persons who are caught in the process of carrying passengers in country boats within the prohibited area. The district authorities shall keep constant check at strategic points with a view to take appropriate action against the person who indulge in carrying passengers in country boats within the prohibited area. They are further directed to take appropriate legal action against all persons who are caught in the process of carrying passengers in country boats within the prohibited area. This, however, must be obiserved with the exception that person or persons accompanying the cattle transported iin a country boat may be permitted to accompany the cattle in the boat. (ii) The District Magistrate/collector, bhagalpur is directed to see to it that the lessee operates the ferry strictly in accordance with the terms of the agreement. The matter with regard to the rectification of the lease deed is said to be pending before the commissioner. If not already disposed of, the Commissioner is directed to dispose of the matter within a period of two weeks from the date of which a copy of this order is received by him in normal course or as produced before him by any of the parties. (iii) Having regard to the provision in the agreement for providing more than one steamer, the District Magistrate will see to it that the lessee makes some alternative agreement during the period his steamer is not in operation on account of annual repair, or for any other reason. Obviously, when the steamer service is not available, the passengers may be compelled to travel in country boats, lastly, the respondent no.3, the lessee must be held bound by his agreement to provide a vessel with a seating capacity of 300 persons during the rainy season. In his counter affidavit the lessee has stated that he has made necessary arrangement for providing such vessel. He should, therefore, have no difficulty in providing such vessel which he has undertaken to provide under the terms of the lease deed. This is subject to any order which the Commissioner may pass with regard to certificate of the lease deed in accordance with law. (iv) It is further directed that the order of this Court in C. W. J. C. No.4639 of 1994 dated 20.5.1994 shall also be strictly complied with. This is subject to any order which the Commissioner may pass with regard to certificate of the lease deed in accordance with law. (iv) It is further directed that the order of this Court in C. W. J. C. No.4639 of 1994 dated 20.5.1994 shall also be strictly complied with. We have not appreciated the comments of the District Magistrate which have been shown to us wherein by avoiding the real issue he has suggested that the bengal Ferries Act be amended so as to make clear as to what is meant by a boat. We are of the view that the District magistrate has deliberately glossed over the real issue. We also direct that whenever the lessee fails to provide necessary service, the Govt. must take steps to make alternative arrangement so that adequate ferry service can be provided to the public. We are informed that in the case of Barari Ghat, some disputes have arisen with the result that presently no ferry service through proper settlement is available. We hope the commissioner and the District Magistrate concerned will take prompt steps to remedy the situation, and either resolve the dispute or make fresh settlement in accordance with law. All these matters are disposed of in the above terms. The original file submitted to us by learned Addl. Advocate General III has been handed over to him in Court to day. Let a copy of this order be given to the addl. Advocate General III so that he may communicate it to the appropriate authorities.