JUDGMENT D. K. Seth, J.: An auction was held on 10th April, 2001. There were twelve participants. The highest bid was Rs. 82,200/- while the petitioner bade Rs. 82,000/- and was the second highest bidder. Subsequently the said auction was cancelled and re-auction was held on 12th April, 2001 in which nine of the participants had participated and the highest bid was Rs. 9500/- which was accepted. This time the petitioner was the highest bidder. Despite success in the auction, the petitioner was not allowed to run the ferry. He had been writing successively to the Sub-divisional Magistrate for granting permission in order to allow him to run the ferry service in vain. Ultimately he had moved a writ petition before this Court, being Writ Petition No. 11873(W)/2001. But before any order could be passed on the said writ petition, the Sub-divisional Magistrate had passed an order on 7th August, 2001 suspending the lease in favour of the petitioner and directing the Prodhan of Sambhunagar Gram Panchayat under Gosaba Panchayat Samity to run the ferry service. The petitioner has challenged this order in Writ Petition No. 12189(W)/2001 which is appearing in the list. In the circumstances, these two writ petitions, being W.P.11873(W)/2001 and W.P.12189(W)/2001, are taken up together. 2. Mr. Udayan Ray, learned Advocate appears for the private respondent. Mr. A. N. Banerjee, learned Advocate appears for the State and Mr. Kalyan Bandhopadhyay learned Advocate, appears for the petitioner. Direction was given to Mr. A. N. Banerjee to produce the records. He has produced the records. 3. On the question of law, Mr. Kalyan Banerjee had pointed out that the Sub-divisional Officer has no jurisdiction to intervene in the matter since the ferry is being managed by the local authority, being the Panchayat Samity, Panchayat Samity is governed by the provisions contained in the Panchayat Administrative Rules, 1984. However, the Panchayat Act and the Rules does not prescribe any provision under which the Sub-divisional Magistrate can exercise any control over the ferry service. He also relied on the Ferries Act in order to contend that it is only the District Magistrate who can exercise such power and not the Sub-divisional Magistrate. Therefore, the order passed by the Sub-divisional Officer cannot be sustained. 4. On the other hand, Mr. He also relied on the Ferries Act in order to contend that it is only the District Magistrate who can exercise such power and not the Sub-divisional Magistrate. Therefore, the order passed by the Sub-divisional Officer cannot be sustained. 4. On the other hand, Mr. A.N. Banerjee had contended that under section 7 of the Ferries Act, the management and control of the ferry lies with the District Magistrate which also can be exercised by the Sub-divisional Officer when it is so delegated by the District Magistrate. He further contends that by reason of section 35 of the Ferries Act, the control of the ferry service is entrusted with the local authority, still then such power vested in the local authority except the power provided under sections 7, 16 and 32 of the Ferries Act. Thus, when the ferry is managed by the local authority, the power under section 7 can be exercised by a Magistrate. Mr. Udayan Ray appearing for the private respondent adopted the submission of Mr. A N. Banerjee and contended that there was some irregularity in the auction of the ferry service and therefore it was rightly decided by the Sub-divisional Officer to suspend the same and entrust the running of the ferry service to the Prodhan. He further contends that the ferry is being run by some other persons. The Prodhan is only collecting the tolls from such persons. According to the Prodhan, when Rs. 82,000/- was the highest bid, Rs. 9,500/- cannot be accepted without holding proper auction. Since there were twelve participants, it could not have been cancelled only on the basis of the application made by nine of them. It is a public auction. Therefore, the other four participants ought to have been intimated or they should have been given notice fixing the date of auction. Therefore, the Sub-divisional Officer has rightly taken this steps. 5. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties perusing the materials produced before this Court it appears that a notice was issued on 28th March, 2001 fixing 10th April, 2001 for holding auction of different ferry ghats including the present one being the Palpur Kochukbali ferry. The said auction for the Bengali year 1408 was to be held at the Office of the Gosaba Panchayat Samity. The said auction for the Bengali year 1408 was to be held at the Office of the Gosaba Panchayat Samity. It appears that in the auction held on 10th April, 2001 while one Gunadhar Mali although offered bid at the rate of Rs. 82,200/- as the highest bidder, the petitioner was the second highest bidder. The bid of Gunadhar Mali was accepted on 10th April, 2001. On the same date one Khagendra Nath Jodder made an application for cancellation and prayed for re-auction on the ground that on a misunderstanding between the parties such highest bid was offered. Eight other applicants jointly made similar application including the said Gunadhar Mali as well as the petitioner. On the basis of the said application, auction was cancelled and it was fixed on 12th April, 2001. On 12th April, 2001 the said nine applicants had participated and Rs. 9,500/- was the highest bid offered by the petitioner which was accepted. The other three persons who did not participate in the second auction were not amongst the first and second highest bidder. Mr. Banerjee had also pointed out that the bid for this ferry had never exceeded Rs. 6,000/- on any of the earlier years. Even on the last year auction was held for an amount less than Rs. 6,000/-. Thus prima facie he makes out certain point in his favour to the extent that the bid of Rs. 82,000/was by certain misunderstanding between the parties. This writ jurisdiction cannot be exercised on finding of facts and as such, the said question cannot be gone into. In any event, the petitioner had been awarded the lease for the ferry service, but someone had prevented him from running the ferry and endeavour to obtain protection from appropriate comer was of no avail. Ultimately the auction was suspended and the Sub-divisional Officer had started making an enquiry in the matter. 6. So far as the question of jurisdiction is concerned, the West Bengal Panchayat Act does not provide any provision in which the Sub-divisional Officer can exercise any jurisdiction or control over the action held by any authority under the Panchayat Act, particularly the Panchayat Samity. 6. So far as the question of jurisdiction is concerned, the West Bengal Panchayat Act does not provide any provision in which the Sub-divisional Officer can exercise any jurisdiction or control over the action held by any authority under the Panchayat Act, particularly the Panchayat Samity. The question of ferry service is governed by the Bengal Ferries Act 1885 (Act 1 of 1885) in which section 7 of the said Act makes a provision for exercising control by the District Magistrate of the District under the direction of the Commissioner. In section 8 of the Ferries Act, superintendence of different ferries is vested in the Magistrate of the District in which the ferry is situated or any such other Officer as the State Government may from time to time either by name or by official designation appoint. Mr. Banerjee relies on this provision and contends that the Sub-divisional Officer is entrusted with the superintendence of this particular ferry. However, nothing has been produced to show that this particular officer either by name or official designation was appointed by the State Government for exercising such jurisdiction. Be that as it may, there is every likelihood that the Sub-divisional Officer might have been appointed by the State Government which at this stage, in my opinion, need not be gone into in view of the decision I am going to take in this matter. Section 35 empowers the State Government to entrust the management of ferry service to the local authority. Under the West Bengal Panchayat Act, section 124 provides for some provision relating to the constitution of Sthayee Samitis while Rule 31 of the Panchayat Administrative Rules, 1984 provide for management of ferries. By reason of section 35, of the Ferries Act, when Panchayat Samity is entrusted as local authority to manage the ferry service, it can do so under the provisions of section 124 read with section 110 of the Panchayat Act, 1973 and Rule 31 of the 1984 Rules to manage the ferry service. But, however, section 35 of the Ferries Act excludes power conferred under sections 7, 17 and 72 of the said Act so far as the local authority is concerned. Therefore, the power of control under section 7 is retained by the State Government in the District Magistrate which might have been delegated to the Sub-divisional Officer. But, however, section 35 of the Ferries Act excludes power conferred under sections 7, 17 and 72 of the said Act so far as the local authority is concerned. Therefore, the power of control under section 7 is retained by the State Government in the District Magistrate which might have been delegated to the Sub-divisional Officer. Therefore, the steps taken by the Sub-divisional Officer cannot be said to be without jurisdiction, provided he is so empowered by reason of section 8 of the said Ferries Act. 7. Ferry service is a public utility service. It cannot be suspended. At the same time it should be managed properly. Such ferry service are to be auctioned in terms of section 9 of the Ferries Act and is to be run through lease. The Ferry Service Act does not empower any Prodhan to run the ferry service. Thus the Panchayat Prodhan cannot interfere with the management of the ferry or running of the ferry. After the lease is granted in favour of any person, the same cannot also be interfered with by the Prodhan in any manner. The management is vested with the Panchayat Samity. It is only Panchayat Samity which can do so and that too within the limit prescribed in law or the authority under section 8 which can exercise the power under section 7 of the Ferries Act. From the facts as revealed, it appears that the Sub-divisional Officer has rightly formed his opinion that there is something wrong in the said auction, but he has to determine the question of validity of the same. In the circumstances, the Sub-divisional Officer is hereby directed to decide the question after having gone through the records as early as possible and preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of this order. In case he upholds the auction held on 12th April, 2001, the petitioner shall be permitted to continue to run the ferry. In case he sets aside the said auction held on 12th April, 2001, in that event he will direct the Panchayat Samity to hold fresh auction within four weeks from the date of such decision and the Panchayat Samity shall hold auction in accordance with law within a period off our weeks from the date of such decision. In case he sets aside the said auction held on 12th April, 2001, in that event he will direct the Panchayat Samity to hold fresh auction within four weeks from the date of such decision and the Panchayat Samity shall hold auction in accordance with law within a period off our weeks from the date of such decision. While taking such decision, the Sub-divisional Officer will give opportunity to Panchayat Samity as well as the petitioner. 8. Since it appears that the auction on the earlier years was less than Rs. 6,000/- and that this year it was Rs. 9,500/- which the petitioner has already deposited, he may be permitted to run the ferry for the intervening period till the next auction is held on condition that he will hand over and deliver possession of the ferry to the successful bidder in such auction within seven days from the date of deposit of the bid money by such successful bidder and in such event he will be entitled to the refund of the money so deposited at the proportionate rate after deducting such amount for the period during which he had run the ferry service. The Prodhan of the Sambhunagar Gram Panchayat shall hand over of the ferry service to the petitioner within seven days from this day and he will take all steps for allowing the petitioner to run the ferry service peacefully and see that no one interferes with the ferry service till the re-auction is held and the petitioner is liable to hand over possession of the ferry service to the successful bidder in terms of this order or until the expiry of the lease of the petitioner if he succeeds in the auction. In case the petitioner succeeds in the auction he will be entitled to adjust the amount already deposited by him against the bid money, proportionately. If necessary, the petitioner may sick police assistance. The Sub-divisional Officer shall also ensure the running of the ferry service by the petitioner peacefully, if necessary, by granting police assistance and in case it is obstructed by anyone, he will cause an enquiry as to who are the persons obstructing the running of the ferry service by the petitioner. If necessary, the petitioner may sick police assistance. The Sub-divisional Officer shall also ensure the running of the ferry service by the petitioner peacefully, if necessary, by granting police assistance and in case it is obstructed by anyone, he will cause an enquiry as to who are the persons obstructing the running of the ferry service by the petitioner. It may be noted that the running of the ferry service by the petitioner in terms of this order will not create any right in favour of the petitioner in the auction to be held by the Sub-divisional Officer after he takes appropriate decision. With this observation, these two writ petitions being W.P. 11073 (W)/2001 and W.P. 12189 (W)/2001, are disposed of. There will be no order as to costs. Xerox plain copy of this order duly countersigned by the Assistant Registrar (Court) be given to the learned Advocate for the parties on the usual undertaking. Writ petitions disposed of.