Judgment N.Pandey, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. This writ petition has been filed for a direction to the respondents to treat the period of settlement of the Sultanganj-Aghwanighat Ferry for three years i.e. from 10-11-1997 to 9-11-2000. 3. From the facts on record, there is no dispute that the settlement for Sultanganj Aghwanighat Ferry for a period of three years was notified for open auction on 7-10-1996. This is also not in dispute that petitioner being the highest bidder, got the settlement on 8-1-1997 and accordingly, the Parwana was issued on 10-11-1997 and thereafter he was given possession. 4. It appears since the ferry in question was notified for settlement for a period of three years, therefore, according to the respondent-authorities, such a period would commence from 22-10-1996 to 21-10-1999. 5. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner contended that from the materials on record, it would appear that the settlement in question could only finalise after the issuance of Parwana on 10-11-1997 and the petitioner could get the possession on that day. Therefore, the period of three years should be treated from the date on which the Parwana was granted. 6. It appears the petitioner for the same relief had approached this Court vide C.W.J.C. No. 625 of 1999. On 5-7-1999 this Court disposed of the writ application to enable the petitioner to file a representation before the Collector of the District. Thereafter, as would appear from Annexure-11, the learned Collector having heard the parties, by the impugned order dated 17-9-1999, refused to grant any relief on the ground that power to grant settlement or to extend the period beyond three years is with the Divisional Commissioner. Therefore, he was not competent to extend the period. 7. Learned Counsel contended since with respect to another ferry, the same authority had counted the period of three years from the date of Parwana, it was not proper for him to take a discriminatory stand in the case of petitioner. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the State however, contends that the decision of the Collector is quite justified. Because any decision regarding settlement or extension beyond a period of three years can only be taken by the Commissioner. He further contended that to his knowledge, there is no circular to treat the period of three years from the date of Parwana. 8. Because any decision regarding settlement or extension beyond a period of three years can only be taken by the Commissioner. He further contended that to his knowledge, there is no circular to treat the period of three years from the date of Parwana. 8. In my view, from the materials, noticed above, it cannot be said that the delay in taking possession of the ferry was done at the instance of the petitioner. True, it is the settlement was notified for a period of three years commencing from 7-10-1996. But, there is no explanation either in the impugned order or by the State Counsel under what circumstances the Parwana was issued on 10-11-1997 after such a delay, putting the petitioner in possession. 9. Therefore, in my view, for the ends of justice, it will be proper to direct authorities to treat the period of settlement of three years from the date on which the Parwana was issued. But, for the remaining period, the petitioner shall also have to deposit the amount on the same ration in which the settlement was made.