The controversy calling for adjudication pertains to the settlement of Dibrugarh-Majorbari Ferry Service for the period from 1.4.99 to 31.3.2002 which has arisen in the following circumstances. 2. Respondent No.3, the Executive Engineer, Inland Water Transport Division, Dibrugarh issued notice inviting tenders for settlement of various ferries including Dibrugarh-Majorbari Ferry vide notification dated 8.2.99 for the period from 1.4.99 to 31.3.2002. The settlement process was postponed due to some litigation. After the litigation was over the authority issued short tender notice refixing the date of receiving and opening of Ferry tender against all the ferries except Nimati-Kamalabari Ferry under Dibrugarh Division which was fixed on 12.3.99. For the Ferry in question viz Dibrugarh-Majorbari Ferry the respondents received 9 Nos of tenders which were opened on 12.3.99 reflecting their respective offers/ bids against their names which are cited below : Name Bid 1. Shri Rifat Mazid (Petitioner) Rs. 27,81,111/- 2.Shri Shaukat Mazid Rs. 27,75,555/- 3. M/s Brahmaputra Enterprise (respondent No. 4) Rs. 21,00,000/- 4. Shri Munna Gogoi Rs. 15,99,999/- 5. Shri Heman Hazarika Rs. 15,93,000/- 6. Shri Karuna Hazarika Rs. 12,63,000/- 7. Shri Dipak Bora Rs. 12,11,303/- 8.Shri Kalyan.Gogoi Rs. 9,95,775/- 9. Shri Pradip Baruah Rs. 9,55,555/- 3. According to the petitioner as being the highest bidder and his tender being also valid in all respects, he was expecting that the settlement will be made in his favour. He came to know about the impugned order being No. TWT 59/967 478 dated 26.4.99 whereby the respondents settled the Ferry in favour of respondent No. 4 M/s Brahmaputra Enterprise, an unregistered partnership firm. According to the petitioner the copy of the order of settlement was not furnished to him in spite of the application and therefore, he had to file a separate writ petition for furnishing the copy. In this petition the petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the order as being arbitrary/discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. 4. The respondents including the private respondent submitted their respective affidavits. Both the respondents did not dispute the fact that the petitioner was the highest bidder and respondent No. 4 with whom the settlement was made was the third highest bidder. According to the respondent No. 1 the State of Assam, tenders were invited for the settlement of three Ferry services operating from Dibrugarh namely, (i) Dibru-Sonari-Barsuti, (ii) Dibru-Kachari-Oriumghat and (iii) Dibrugarh-Majorbari. According to the respondent No. 1 the State of Assam, tenders were invited for the settlement of three Ferry services operating from Dibrugarh namely, (i) Dibru-Sonari-Barsuti, (ii) Dibru-Kachari-Oriumghat and (iii) Dibrugarh-Majorbari. The Dibru-Sonari-Barsuti ferry service was settled with one Md Shaukat Mazid who was the highest bidder and also the brother of the petitioner. In respect of the two other ferry services the petitioner and his brother Md Shaukat Mazid were the highest and the second highest bidders respectively. Instead of keeping the ferries under the control of one family those raft from Dibrugarh, the authority considering the public interest and in order to avoid monopolistic competition and also in order to ensure better service to the public decided to settle the remaining two ferry services to the respective third highest bidder. Respondent No. 4 being the third highest bidder in respect of the ferry in question, the ferry was settled with him. Countering the allegation of the petitioner, the respondent-State of Assam stated that there was no legal embargo for settling the ferry with an individual or an unregistered partnership firm. Against the other allegation that the respondent No.4 did not have any landed property in its name the respondent stated that he possess landed property towards security for settlement of the ferry service. Respondent No. 4 also submitted its affidavit and denied and disputed the allegation of the petitioner. 5. Mr. PC Deka, learned senior counsel for the petitioner assisted by Mr. SK Medhi, Advocate submitted that the petitioner being the highest bidder under the settlement rules and his tender being found valid in all respects under the scheme of the Rules, the petitioner was entitled for the settlement. Rules made under section 12 of the Northern India Ferries Act, 1878 prescribe the procedure for settlement and that settlement can only be made in the manner prescribed. Mr. Deka submitted that under the scheme of the Rules settlements are to be offered to the highest bidder and when the offer of the highest bidder is not accepted under the scheme, the authority could have rejected the tender only by assigning reasons. Mr. Deka submitted that when the authority sought to settle the ferry by issuing tender, it was to abide by the offer made in the tender. It could not have on its own raised the bid and settle the ferry with respondent No. 4. Mr. Mr. Deka submitted that when the authority sought to settle the ferry by issuing tender, it was to abide by the offer made in the tender. It could not have on its own raised the bid and settle the ferry with respondent No. 4. Mr. R. Gogoi, learned Senior Advocate however, on the other hand defending the settlement submitted that the ferry in question is a major ferry which require to serve the commuters in the area. The authority considering the interest of the commuters and for getting regular service found respondent No.4 to be most suitable to run the ferry with a view to avoid monopoly and thought it fit not to settle the ferry with the petitioner when one more major ferry was settled with one of his family member. The State Govt was within its competence to do distributive justice. Mr. Gogoi, the learned senior counsel for the respondents submitted that the view taken by the State Govt cannot be faulted as arbitrary/discriminatory requiring any interference from the Court in a judicial review under Article 226. Considera­tion taken by the authority in the circumstance cannot be said to be unreasonable, submitted Mr. Gogoi, the learned Senior Advocate for respondent No. 4. 6. Mr. Goswami, learned Junior Govt Advocate referring to the records submitted that the Govt all through out acted bonafide and passed the impugned order keeping in mind the public interest. 7. The control and management of ferries are regulated by a set of Rules made under section 12 of the Northern India Ferries Act, 1878. All the ferries of the Assam Valley are divided into two classes - major and minor. A major ferry is a ferry across any of the five major rivers in the State namely, ferries that operate in river Brahmaputra, Lohit, Subansiri, Manas and Jiabhorali. Under the d scheme of the Rules tenders are invited by the Executive Engineer concerned and on receipt of the tenders and after opening the same the Executive Engineer prepares a comparative statement of all the tenders and sends the tenders along with all comparative statements to the Director, Inland Water Transport Division with his endorsements. The Director thereafter is required to submit the documents in original with comments and recommendations keeping in mind the factors cited in Rule 16(1) and Rule 19 to the Secretary, Govt of Assam, Transport Department. The Director thereafter is required to submit the documents in original with comments and recommendations keeping in mind the factors cited in Rule 16(1) and Rule 19 to the Secretary, Govt of Assam, Transport Department. Under the Rules the bids or offer amount in tender requires approval of the Secretary, Govt of Assam, Transport Department. Rule 19 and 19 (b) of the Rules reads as follows : "19. The sale by auction/tender shall generally be to the highest bidder/tenderer. The officer conducting the sale/calling for tender may, however, refuse to accept the bid/tender if any of the requirements of the bid/tender is not satisfied. Or, for sufficient reasons to be recorded in writing under his own hand he may refuse to accept the offer of the highest bidder/tenderer or any bid/tender. The officer shall in accepting the bid/tender consider the following factors amongst others : (i) Whether the bid/tender amount is sufficient to earn approx the revenue which could be normally expected from the ferry; (ii) Whether the bidder/tenderer is indigenous of the State or permanent resident of the State or outside; (iii) Whether the tenderer/bidder suffers from moral turpitude or has been convicted by Court/black listed of a defaulter of land revenue; (iv) Whether the tenderer/bidder possess periodic patta land of value not less than the bid/tender money in his own name within the District/Sub Division; (v) Whether the tenderer/bidder has sufficient experience to. run the ferry efficiently. 19. (b) The Secretary to the Govt of Assam in the Transport Department shall consider the result of the auction sale or tender or both together, as the case may be, for the purpose of final settlement. In doing so he shall consider among others whether the officer conducting the sale calling for tenders and the Director have taken into account and considered all the factors mentioned in Rule 19 above, the Secretary to the Govt of Assam in the Transport Department may for reasons recorded in writing disapprove of the bid/tender or both, or as the case may be, accepted by the officer conducting the sale/calling for tenders and by the Director and may settle the ferry with any bidder/ tenderer or may disapprove the sale/tenders or both. The decision of the Secretary to the Govt of Assam in the Transport will be final and binding on all concerned." Under the Rules, the Secretary is charged with the responsibility to ascertain as to whether the officer conducting the sale calling for tenders and the Director have taken into account and considered all the factors mentioned in Rule 19. The Secretary may for reasons recorded in writing disapprove the tender accepted by the officer conducting the sale and by the Director and may settle the ferry with any bidder/tenderer or may disapprove the sale or both tenders. The decision of the Secretary would be final and binding on all concerned. The Rules clearly indicate that the approval for disapproval rests on the Secretary. The Rules does not countenance any other authority in the matter of settlement of ferries. The issue is no longer a res-integra in view of a Bench decision in Orin Moyong vs. Secretary to the Govt of Assam reported in AIR 1974 Gauhati 27 and followed in Abdul Mazid vs. State of Assam reported in (1987) 2 GLR 476. 8. From the records those were made available, it transpires that the Director recommended to settle the ferry in question with the petitioner at his offered bid of Rs. 27,81,111/- for a period of three years wef 1.4.99 to 31.3.2002 vide communication No. DWT/91/156 dated 30.3.99 addressed to the Commissioner and Secretary to the Govt of Assam. Director's recommendation along with the note of Finance and accounts was placed before the Commissioner and Secretary. The Commissioner and Secretary put up the recommendation and the FA note before the Minister of Transport. The Minister endorsed the file to the Secretary to settle the ferry with respondent No.4 on 8.4.99. The Commissioner and Secretary put up his resistance and submitted his counter-action before the Minister to reconsider the order and advised him to approve the settlement with the highest bidder. The authority thereafter called for more details from the Director and the Director submitted a fresh report on 9.4.99. The Commissioner and Secretary put up his resistance and submitted his counter-action before the Minister to reconsider the order and advised him to approve the settlement with the highest bidder. The authority thereafter called for more details from the Director and the Director submitted a fresh report on 9.4.99. The matter thereafter again reached the Minister who in turn ordered the Commissioner and Secretary to settle the ferry with respondent No.4 which reads as follows : "There are three Ferry services in Dibrugarh district - (1) Dibru Sonari Borsuti (Main ghat) (2) Dibru Kachari Uriumghat (Main ghat)' (3) Dibru Majorbari (Newly created) These three ferry service should be settled with three different parties. If we settle the three Ferry service to different parties, the service quality remain good. We can have better competition among them and service will improve in future and we can earned more revenue. The highest bidder have already been settled with Dibru Sonari Borsuti the main ghat of the Dibrugarh district, so they should not given another ghat. Dibru-Majorbari ghat should be settled with M/s Brahmaputra Enterprise at the highest money under the above mentioned ground.. This party was the sitting lessee of Dibru-Kachari Uriumghat. They have given good service also regular in all payment. Sd/-Minister" 9. The settlement was made accordingly in favour of respondent No.4. The reason cited by the Minister may not be considered as irrelevant as was contended by Mr. R. Gogoi but the question still lingers as to the competence of the respondents in the matter of settlement of the ferry in favour of respondent No. 4. As pointed out earlier respondent No. 4 in his tender offered his bid at Rs. 21 lakhs which was never sought to be raised by the tenderer. Therefore, the question of accepting the bid of the respondent No. 4 at the bid of the petitioner did not arise. Assuming there was some negotiation with respondent No.4, though records did not disclose, in that case also others were also equally entitled for raising their offers. That apart, in the instant case admittedly it appears that the statutory authority did not accept the offer of the respondent No.4 nor the same was approved by the authority who are charged with the power of settlement. That apart, in the instant case admittedly it appears that the statutory authority did not accept the offer of the respondent No.4 nor the same was approved by the authority who are charged with the power of settlement. The d Minister being a stranger to the scheme under the Rules could not have on his own settled the ferry as was held by this Court in Orin Moyong vs. Secretary to the Govt of Assam & others reported in AIR 1974 Gauhati 27 and Abdul Mazid vs. State of Assam & others reported in (1987) 2 GLR 476. 10. In Orin Moyong (supra) this Court has held as follows : "12. It is therefore clear that there is a three tier system in the matter of settlement of ferry. The first officer who is concerned with the settlement is powered under the Rules to provisionally accept a tender. The second stage is reached when the Director has to make a decision for accepting one of the tenders. He may agree with the officer receiving the tenders or may make his own recommendation. Both the officers, however are required to take into account and consider the factors-enumerated in Rule 19 and other relevant factors. The third and final stage is reached when the relevant documents and tenders along with the comparative statements in Appendix 'C' are received by the Secretary who considers the whole matter in order to make the final settlement of the ferry. The Rules do not contemplate any other authority in the matter of settlement of ferries. The last authority is that of the Secretary and he has to take his own decision in the matter in the light of the Rules. The Secretary cannot surrender his independent judgment to the Minister or to any other authority. The intervention of the Transport Minister in the matter of settlement of ferries is foreign to the Rules. This appears to be the legal position that emerges from the scheme of the Rules which we have already noticed. 13. In the instant case, the Secretary has not arrived at his independent decision in the matter of acceptance of the tender. As we have set out above, his two contradictory notes to the Minister of 16th and 22nd March, 1973 clearly disclose that he was not aware of his duties under the Rules in the matter of settlement of ferries. In the instant case, the Secretary has not arrived at his independent decision in the matter of acceptance of the tender. As we have set out above, his two contradictory notes to the Minister of 16th and 22nd March, 1973 clearly disclose that he was not aware of his duties under the Rules in the matter of settlement of ferries. Left to the Secretary one might even take the view that he would have accepted the tender of the petitioner as he seems to have indicated in his note of 16th March to the Minister. Although it is not clear why another contradictory note had to be given by the Secretary to the Minister one week after the first note a without obtaining any order thereon from the Minister. It is apparent that he was submitting his second note under the behest of some other authority, in all likelihood the Minister himself who later on approved of the second note in favour of the 5th respondent. At any rate, it is clear that the Secretary has not applied his own mind in the matter of approval and has come to a decision contrary to the Rules an in compliance with the wishes of an authority not contemplated under the Rules, b Approval of settlement under the Rules is to be accorded by the Secretary and not by the Minister. There is, therefore, no approval of the settlement in this case under the Rules in the eye of law." 11. Following the said decision in Abdul Mazld vs. State of Assam this Court held: "Quod contra legem fit pro infecto habetur that which is done against law is regarded as not done at all. Where a power is given to a certain thing in a certain way the thing must be done in that way or not at all. Other methods of performance are necessarily forbidden." 12. For the foregoing reasons the impugned order of settlement of ferry in favour of respondent No.4 bearing No.TWT/59/ 96/478 dated 26.4.99 is not sustainable and accordingly set aside. The matter is sent back to the Secretary to the Govt of Assam, Transport Department who shall take necessary steps as per law for settlement of the Ferry in question, with utmost dispatch preferably within two months. The matter is sent back to the Secretary to the Govt of Assam, Transport Department who shall take necessary steps as per law for settlement of the Ferry in question, with utmost dispatch preferably within two months. Till completion of the aforesaid exercise, it will be open for the authority to maintain status-quo as regards the management of the Ferry or to make any make shift arrangements for the interregnum Writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated. There shall however, be no order as to costs.