Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1159 (PAT)

Bishnudeo Yadav v. State Of Bihar

2002-10-30

S.N.JHA

body2002
Judgment 1. The dispute in these two writ petitions relates to settlement of Munger Rajghat Ferry. In CWJC 9940/2002 Basudeo Yadav (hereinafter called the petitioner) seeks quashing of the settlement made in favour of the respondent no. 5 Harijan Naw Avam Jahaj Tatha Sarak Yatayat Swablambi Sahakari Samiti (hereinafter called the Samiti), and for a direction to settle the ferry with him. CWJC No. 14208/2001 has been filed by the Samiti for quashing the order of the Commissioner, Munger Division, dated 1.11.2000 directing the District Magistrate, Munger to stop the petitioner from running the ferry and take steps for fresh settlement on the basis of auction after advertisement. The dispute involved being one and the same the cases were taken up for hearing together. 2. The settlement giving rise to the dispute relates to the period 1.1.2000 to 31.12.2002. When the cases were heard on 10.10.2002 less than three months remained for the period to end and therefore it was evident that this Court could do precious little to interfere with the impugned settlement at this stage. Counsel for the parties nonetheless made submissions at length in CWJC No. 9940/2002, while the other case i.e. CWJC No. 14208/2001 was sought to be withdrawn presumably because the petitioner of that case i.e. the Samiti has meanwhile filed a suit being Title Suit No. 113/ 2002 in the Court of 1st Sub Judge, Munger in which it has been granted status quo order. Though the cases have become virtually infructuous, I would like to make a few observations but before I do so I must notice the salient facts of the case. 3. On 25.11.99 a public notice was published in the newspapers for settlement of the Munger Rajghat Ferry. On 31.12.99 auction was held.The petitioner, Bishundeo Yadav, and respondent no. 4 Kumar Arun Chandra Singh participated in the auction. The settlement however was not made in favour of either of them. After the auction was stayed, for reasons stated in the minutes dated 31.12.99, an application was filed on behalf of the Samiti for settlement. On the same day i.e. 31.12.99 the Collector, Munger directed that the ferry be settled with it. The settlement however was not made in favour of either of them. After the auction was stayed, for reasons stated in the minutes dated 31.12.99, an application was filed on behalf of the Samiti for settlement. On the same day i.e. 31.12.99 the Collector, Munger directed that the ferry be settled with it. The settlement gave rise to disputes and by letter dated 1.11.2000 the Divisional Commissioner directed the Collector to stop the Samiti from running the ferry and make fresh settlement on the reserve jama keeping in view the safety of the passengers. It is against this order/ letter that the Samiti preferred C.W.J.C. No. 14208/2001 as already mentioned above. The Samiti in fact came again to this Court in CWJC No. 4617/2002 even while its earlier writ petition was pending. It appears that in the meantime on 3.4.2002 the Collector, Munger had passed order stopping the ferry service till further orders on the ground of law and order problem. This Court took the view that the Constitution contemplates protection of its citizen for pursuing their profession and business and it is the bounden duty of the authorities to give protection to the petitioner. Accordingly , order of the Collector was set aside and he was directed to give protection to the Samiti so that it can run the ferry service. Meanwhile, it appears, another writ petition by respondent no. 4 Kumar Arun Chandra Singh had been filed in this Court which was withdrawn by him on 25.9.2001 in view of the aforesaid order/letter of the Divisional Commissioner dated 1.11.2000. 4. The case of the petitioner is that in terms of notification no. S.O. 84 dated 15.4.87 Boatmens Co-operative Societies registered under the Bihar Co-operative Societies Act, 1935 are entitled to take settlement of the ferries without participating in the auction within the area of their operation on reserve jama provided they fulfil all conditions of settlement. Such settlement shall normally for a period of one year. In order to assess the potential of the ferry and to determine the reserve jama auction should be held after a maximum of three years for future settlement with Boatmens Society on the amount not less than the reserve jama. Reserve jama shall be fixed by adding 15 percent more than the average of reserve jama for the last three years or last years reserve jama, whichever is higher. Reserve jama shall be fixed by adding 15 percent more than the average of reserve jama for the last three years or last years reserve jama, whichever is higher. The settlement can be made provided the Society possess suitable vessels of the required passenger capacity having the Surveyers certificate by the competent authority. They should also possess the requisite number of country boats. 5. Further case of the petitioner is that the settlement in the instant case was made with the Society on the condition it provides two vessels of 1000 and 300 passenger capacity duly certified by the Chief Survey Officer of Inland Steam Vessels, Bihar. From the certificates in respect of vessels provided by the Samiti enclosed as Annexure 13 series, it will appear that not only the passenger capacity of the vessels is far less than the required capacity, their validity period had also expired long back. It was pointed out with reference to Annexure 13 series that the passenger capacity of the vessels known as Mahaprabhu, Satadal and Bangajyoti is 100, 100 and 90 respectively (while plying in smooth water on voyages not exceeding six hours by day only), the validity period of the certificate expired respectively on 3.11.2000, 30.12.2000 and 1.7.2002. 6. In an earlier case relating to settlement of the same Munger Rajghat Ferry for the period 1997-99, titled Kumar Arbind Chandra Singh V/s. State of Bihar, 1997(2) PLJR 428 , while taking note of a similar grievance that the settlee had failed to provide vessels of the required passenger capacity, this Court observed that the dispute as to whether the vessels in question conform to the terms of the auction notice or not can be looked into by the Licensing Authority i.e. District Magistrate. It is always open to him to pass appropriate order directing the settlee to substitute the existing vessels by vessels of the required capacity and in the event he fails to comply with such direction, to take appropriate action to the extent of cancelling the settlement. The Court observed that while considering this aspect of the matter the Collector is expected to keep in mind the safety and interest of the passengers i.e. the public interest. 7. The condition that the settlee must provide vessels of particular passenger capacity is based on the flow of traffic. The Court observed that while considering this aspect of the matter the Collector is expected to keep in mind the safety and interest of the passengers i.e. the public interest. 7. The condition that the settlee must provide vessels of particular passenger capacity is based on the flow of traffic. If the flow of traffic is high compared to the size of the vessel there may be overcrowding resulting in safety hazards to the passengers. It is therefore imperative that the settlees do provide vessels of the required passenger capacity. It is also imperative that the vessels are properly certified by the competent authority. It is unfortunate that though the impugned settlement was made with the Samiti long time back, it did not provide the vessels in conformity with the relevant condition. 8. However, as indicated at the outset, precious little can be done at this stage, for any interference with the settlement on any ground is bound to cause inconvenience to the public at large. The Court would nonetheless impress upon the authorities, particularly the District Magistrate, Munger that when the ferry is settled next time care must be taken that the settlee, whoever it may be, do provide suitable vessels of the required passenger capacity duly certified by the competent authority. 9. In view of the fact that the period of settlement is about the end, counsel for the Samiti rightly submitted that the writ petition is highly belated and the Court should not interfere in the matter. However, he failed to satisfy me about the bonafide of the Samiti filing the title suit. As mentioned above, apart from instant C.W.J.C. No. 14208/2001, it had also filed CWJC No. 4617/2002 and it is not understandable as to why during pendency of the case it should file suit in the civil court on the pretext of fresh cause of action. From perusal of copy of the plaint of the title suit it appears that cause of action for filing the suit is said to have arisen on 26.8.2002, 30.8.2002, 11.9.2002 and 13.9.2002 when Memo nos. 100, 104, 107 and 108 were issued. Memo no. 100 dated 26.8.2002 was issued seeking explanation from the petitioner, while Memo no. 104 dated 30.8.2002 was issued stopping the ferry, Memo no. 107 dated 11.9.2002 was issued cancelling the settlement, and Memo no. 108 dated 13.9.2002 was issued for fresh auction. 100, 104, 107 and 108 were issued. Memo no. 100 dated 26.8.2002 was issued seeking explanation from the petitioner, while Memo no. 104 dated 30.8.2002 was issued stopping the ferry, Memo no. 107 dated 11.9.2002 was issued cancelling the settlement, and Memo no. 108 dated 13.9.2002 was issued for fresh auction. Earlier also order had been passed stopping the ferry service against which the petitioner had approached this Court and got favourable order. It is there- fore not understandable as to how this time in the garb of fresh cause of action, they chose to go to the Civil Court. It is no doubt open to any person to file a suit in the civil court if the civil court has jurisdiction to grant the reliefs, but considering that the writ petition (CWJC No. 14208/ 2001) was already pending in which the petitioner had challenged more or less similar order of the Commissioner, Munger Division for stopping the ferry service by the Samiti and for fresh settlement by public auction, it was open to the Samiti to amend the writ petition and challenge the subsequent orders instead of going in for suit in the civil court, and at the same time seeking leave of this Court to withdraw the writ petition. In the facts and circumstances filing of the suit does not appear to be bona fide. I do not want to make further observations beyond this as the suit is pending in which the Court has already passed status quo order. I would however observe that in no case the benefit of status quo order shall be extended beyond the period of settlement which is going to expire on 31.12.2002. The concerned authorities must take steps for fresh settlement for the next year(s) in the meantime. 10. With these observations and direction the writ petitions stand disposed of.