Judgment R.M.Prasad, J. 1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 28.12.2002 of the District Magistrate, Munger (Respondent No. 4), as contained in Annexure 25, whereby and whereunder the settlement of Munger Rajghat Ferry Service for the period 1.1.2003 to 27.9.2003 has been made in favour of respondent No. 10 on the basis of survey certificate issued by the Motor Vehicle Inspector, Munger for a cargo boat, namely, M.V. Radha Govind and Boat No. 22 and further to direct respondent No. 2 to settle the ferry in question in favour of the petitioner. Later by an amendment petition filed on 21.4.2004 the petitioner has also challenged the order dated 26.9.2003 (Annexure 33) by which the period of settlement has been extended to 31.12.2003 and the order dated 6:11.2003 (Annexure 35) for further extending the period of settlement up to 31.12.2005 on the basis of declaration of survey of M.V. Vasudev + boat No. 21 issued by the Motor Vehicle Inspector, Munger. 2. In short the case of the petitioner is that they are registered Co-operative Society since 21.12.1999 and engaged in transportation business both by road and river. According to them, the process of settlement of Rajghat Ferry Service, Munger for the period 1.1.2000 to 31.12.2002 was initiated and notice for the settlement was issued for holding of auction on 17.12.1999 in daily newspaper. As no bidder appeared on that date another notice was issued for holding of public auction on 31.12.1999 when two bidders appeared and claimed to produce seven vessels. On scrutiny it was found that six vessels were not produced and other one lacked proper certificates and was not fit for plying. One of the bidders did not deposit the earnest money and also did not produce no dues certificate which disqualified both the bidders and hence the auction procedure failed and it was dropped. It is stated that vide Circular No. 2-0-51/78 2526 R dated 12.9.1978 the State Government directed to settle ghat (ferry services) with the Co-operative Society on the basis of reserve money (Sukrakshit Jama) and auction is to be resorted only when no such Co-operative society is ready to undertake the job on the basis of Surakshit jama. The petitioner offered to ply the boat and vessels besides making arrangement for toll collection for the period 1.1.2000 to 31.12.2000 on payment of reserve Jama i.e. Rs. The petitioner offered to ply the boat and vessels besides making arrangement for toll collection for the period 1.1.2000 to 31.12.2000 on payment of reserve Jama i.e. Rs. 7.89 lacs and the collector (respondent No. 4) to avoid the loss of revenue and difficulties faced by the passenger on account of failure of auction accepted their officer and passed the order dated 31.12.1999 to settle the Munger Rajghat Ferry service in question with them u/s. 8 of the Bengal Ferry Act, 1885. The petitioner deposited the due installment for every quarter and operated ferry. The District Magistrate vide letter dated 24.9.2001 to the Commissioner, Munger Division, Munger (Annexure 12) intimated that the settlement for two years i.e. 2000-2002 has been done and the petitioning society had deposited the amount for current year and considering "that there was no complaint of inconvenience or security from the passengers recommended that no procedure for fresh settlement shall be proper and sought for approval of his auction. One of the auctioneer who failed in the aforesaid auction filed the writ petition bearing CWJC No. 8726 of 2000 against the said settlement of ferry service to the petitioner which was dismissed as withdrawn on 25.9.2001. However, in the meanwhile the Commissioner ordered for cancellation of settlement of the ferry service on 1.11.2000 and directed to readvertise the same on the ground that the Samiti did not produce vessels as.per terms and conditions of the auction, validity of which the petitioning Samiti challenged in CWJC No. 4208 of 2001. It is alleged that during the pendency of the said writ petition the unsocial element started disturbing the ferry service run by the petitioner and in stead of restraining them respondent No. 4 vide order dated 3.4.2002 directed the petitioner to stop ferry service till further orders due to law and order problem. The petitioner challenged the said order in CWJC No. 461 of 2002 in which this Court vide order contained in Annexure 15 quashed the impugned order and directed respondent No. 4 to give protection to the petitioner so that he can pursue his duties for fulfilment of the settlement regarding ferry services for the period in question and accordingly, the petitioner resumed the ferry service. However, as the survey certificate of vessel were going to expire the petitioner Samiti took them to Kolkata for renewal of survey certificate. However, as the survey certificate of vessel were going to expire the petitioner Samiti took them to Kolkata for renewal of survey certificate. In the meanwhile respondent No. 4 vide order dated 11.9.2002 cancelled the aforesaid settlement on the ground that the ship of the Samiti does not have valid survey certificates. This order was challenged by the petitioner Samiti in T.S. No. .113 of 2002 in which the learned Court below was pleased to pass the order for maintenance of the status quo on 27.9.2002 and later this Court also declined to interfere with the settlement of Rajghat Ferry. The petitioner Samiti assailed its validity in CWJC No. 8940 of 2002 which was heard alongwith the writ petition bearing CWJC No. 1408/2001 earlier filed by the petitioner and this Court approved the benefit of the order of status quo passed in T.S. No. 113 of 2002. It is alleged that despite the status quo and the order of this Court respondent No. 4 did not allow the petitioner Samiti to run the ferry service and settled it with Suresh Prasad Singh (respondent No. 10) for 20 days on 11.12.2002 on the survey certificate of the Motor Vehicle Inspector for the vessel M.V. Radha Govind. On 28.12.2002 respondent No. 4 after rejecting the claim of the petitioner for settlement of the ferry service on the ground that the survey certificate of its ships were issued by the Government of Bengal settled the same with respondent No. 10 for the period 1.1.2003 to 25.9.2003 on the basis of the certificate granted by the Motor Vehicle Inspector, Munger. It is stated that after the said settlement the Secretary of the Department of Transport (respondent No. 2) and the Collector (respondent No. 4) requested the Government of Bengal to conduct survey of the ship namely, M.V. Radha Govind for issuing fitness certificate by sending its due surveyer. The petitioner has challenged the order of said settlement in favour of respondent No. 10 on the basis of certificate granted by the Motor Vehicle Inspector. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, as per provision contained in sec. 9 (4) of the Inland vessels Act the Motor Vehicle Inspector can not be appointed as surveyor and he is not the competent person to issue such certificate. 3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, as per provision contained in sec. 9 (4) of the Inland vessels Act the Motor Vehicle Inspector can not be appointed as surveyor and he is not the competent person to issue such certificate. 3. Supplementary, counter, rejoinder, reply affidavits have been filed about which in view of the question involved in the present case this Court does not feel inclined to deal with them in detail. Respondents No. 3 and 4 in their counter affidavit have admitted that preference is to be given to the Co-operative Society provided it possesses the requisite qualification. According to the said respondents, it is quite false to suggest that for survey certificate the vessels are to be taken to Calcutta for renewal of certificate on account of the fact that the post of competent authority to issue survey certificate was vacant. It is further stated that the survey certificate is never granted by any authority of Calcutta and that survey certificate may be granted by the MVI, who is the competent authority empowered to grant such certificate in the light of the notification issued in this behalf by the Government of Bihar vide serial No. 270 dated 4.8.2003 published in the Bihar Gazette of the same date and information to this effect was circulated vide letter No. WT 30.3.2002 Transport 102 Patna dated 14.9.2002 of the Secretary, Transport, Government of Bihar, Patna to the District Magistrate, Munger and other places. A copy of the gazette notification dated 4.8.1993 has been annexed as Annexure A. According to the said respondents, since the writ petitioner failed to possess the vessels with valid survey certificate his settlement was cancelled and auction for settlement of the ferry was taken only after the injunction petition in T.S. No. 113/2000 was rejected by the learned sub-ordinate Judge 1, Munger. 4. The Secretary in his counter affidavit while stating that he is not concerned directly or indirectly nor is competent to interfere with any settlement arrived at by the District Magistrate with the approval of the commissioner further stated that on several directions to the Road Construction Department one Pramod Narayan Singh, Executive Engineer, N.H. Division, Road Construction Department, has been notified vide notification No. RC 3021(5) dated 27.4.2004 to function as Deputy Director, Inland Water Transport Directorate who is the authorised Chief Surveyer of Inland vessels. The photo stat copy of the said notification has been annexed as Annexure A. It is however admitted that according to Sec. 10-A of the Inland vessels Act, 1917 a certificate of survey shall have effect throughout the State in which it is issued provided that such a certificate may be endorsed by the State Government or any other State or with the general or special sanction of the State Government of that other State shall have effect accordingly. It is further admitted that the Secretary, Transport and the State Transport Commissioner in view of the vacant post of the Chief Surveyor in Bihar and also lack of drydocking facilities in Bihar wrote to the Secretary, Transport, West Bengal vide letter No. 21 dated 6.3.2003 to arrange for issuance of certificate of survey but that could not materialise despite repeated reminders. As regards the certificate to be granted by the MVI vide Annexures 20 series in favour of M.V. Radha Govind it is stated that the Motor Vehicle Inspector who is authorised to discharge duties of Surveyor vide notification No. SO 270 dated 4.8.1993 has simply submitted survey report in form No. 3 and 4 and not that he has granted the certificate of survey. The Secretary has also stated that the Motor Vehicle Inspector is empowered to survey inland vessels and submit his report to the Chief Surveyor. His recommendation does not have any legal sanction in respect of settlement of ferry. 5. Respondent No. 10 in his counter affidavit has stated that he fulfilled all the criteria regarding vessels, namely, M.V. Radha Govind, Boat No. 22, and being successful bidder the settlement was made with him with effect from 12.12.2002 to 31.12.2002 and he successfully completed the period of settlement by providing all passengers amenities and facilities apart from the security and safety of the passengers. As such, according to him the settlement was further made in his favour from 1.1.2003 to 27.9,2003 for about nine months and on being asked to deposit the amount of Rs. 7,33,353.00 In the District Nazarat, Munger he has also ventured to explain as to how the settlement was extended from time to time and lastly by Parwana issued for the period 1.1.2004 to 31.12.2005 i.e. for the period of three years and further has claimed that on receiving of Parwana he deposited the amount of Rs. 7,33,353.00 In the District Nazarat, Munger he has also ventured to explain as to how the settlement was extended from time to time and lastly by Parwana issued for the period 1.1.2004 to 31.12.2005 i.e. for the period of three years and further has claimed that on receiving of Parwana he deposited the amount of Rs. 9,91,370.00 including agreement amount for the period of two years, i.e. Rs. 84,020.00 and he has been plying his vessels in Munger Rajghat Ferry Service. In paragraph 24 he has admitted that in the absence of Chief Surveyor respondent No. 10 has been plying his vessels in the ferry in question on the. basis of declaration made by the Motor Vehicle Inspector who has been empowered by the State Government through the Bihar Gazette to issue such certificate and as such, there is no irregularity on the part of respondent No. 10, more so when he has all along been approaching the door of the competent authority for survey by the Chief Surveyor but the concerned authority did not appoint the Chief Surveyor despite the direction issue by this Court. As regards appointment of Pramod Narayan Singh he submitted that he informed that he is unable to take over the charge of the Chief Surveyor as he was already overburdened. It is thus contended by him that on this account and the laches on the part of the State authority he should not be compelled to suffer irreparable loss. 6. As regards the allegation made in the affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner that despite interim order respondent No. 10 was plying the vessel in the supplementary counter affidavit filed by the said respondent he while denying the documents filed by the petitioner in support of the said charge has stated that as soon as the order passed by the District Magistrate with respect to plying of vessels in pursuance of the order dated 15.7.2004 passed in CWJC No. 7706 of 2003 was received the plying of the vessels of the ferry has been stopped by the lessee. Besides this, he has also made allegation on the conduct of the petitioner with which we are not concerned in the present case as only question involved in the present case is that whether as per provision contained in sec. Besides this, he has also made allegation on the conduct of the petitioner with which we are not concerned in the present case as only question involved in the present case is that whether as per provision contained in sec. 9(4) of the Inland Vessels Act, survey certificate issued by the Motor Vehicle Inspector as Surveyor is valid or the certificate issued by the Chief Surveyor, West Bengal for operating ferry is valid. 7. This Court in the facts and circumstances of the present case vide order dated 12.7.2004 and in view of the question involved in this case directed that the affidavit should have been filed on behalf of the Government and accordingly directed the Secretary, Transport, to appear and file the counter affidavit. On 15.7.2004 the Secretary, Transport, personally appeared and assisted the Court and this Court after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances directed for listing of the matter on 9.7.2004 for further hearing when the District Magistrate, Munger and the Secretary, Transport, might also appear to assist the Court. Considering the gravity of the matter this Court found it to be a fit case for passing the interim order restraining the official respondents as well as private respondents from allowing the ferry in question to continue pursuant to Annexure 35 of the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner till further orders. 8. The Secretary in the further affidavit filed by him on 28.7.2004 stated that" with a view to ensure safety of the public life instructions have been issued regarding procedure to be followed in granting survey certificates to the vessels. A photo copy of the said instruction issued by the District Magistrate, Munger has been annexed as Annexure J. In the said instruction the secretary while stating that there is provision of grant of declaration certificate under Sections 4(1) and 7 of the Inland Vessels Act, 1917 and on such declaration certificate there is provision for grant of survey certificate under Section 9(4) by the competent authority it cannot be said to be compliance of the provisions of the Act, in later and spirit in the absence of proper examination of the vessel and on account of lack of drydocking facilities in Bihar. He also has accepted that the survey certificate has been signed by the Motor Vehicle Inspector which is contrary to proviso to sec. He also has accepted that the survey certificate has been signed by the Motor Vehicle Inspector which is contrary to proviso to sec. 9 (4) of the Inland Vessels Act. He also stated that the permission granted on such defective certificate to ply the vessels is not in accordance with law and can be dangerous for the view point of security of the passenger and the goods, and thus has issued instruction that in course of inspection declaration given by the Motor Vehicle Inspector should not be accepted as survey certificate with respect to the vessel and if the same has unknowingly been accepted then all such certificate should be cancelled immediately and such vessels should not be considered fit for use of ferry until a survey certificate is not obtained legally. He has further instructed that in the absence of proper provision for survey and mainly keeping in view the security of the passengers the owner/Manager of the vessel should submit application for grant of survey certificate alongwith the valid declaration and only after being satisfied with respect to proper inspection and declaration certificate that it will be proper to issue survey certificate for such period and only such vessels should be permitted to operate in Bihar who produces valid survey certificate to ensure confidence for operating such vessels in Bihar, This perhaps has been done in the light of the provisions contained in sec. 8 read with sec. 9 of the Act. sec. 8 provides that the owner or master of a mechanically propelled vessel to whom a declaration is given u/s. 7 shall, within fourteen days after-the date of the receipt thereof, send the declaration to such officer as the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint in this behalf" and sec. 9(1) provides that the State Government shall, if satisfied that all the provisions of the Act, have been complied with in respect of a declaration sent under Sec. 8, Clause (A) a certificate of survey, in duplicate, to be prepared, and (b) notice thereof to be given by post or otherwise to the. owner or master of the mechanically propelled vessel to which the certificate relates." By the Gazette Notification dated 4th August, 1993 (Annexure A) referred to above the Government in exercise of power under Sub-sec. 1(b) of sec. owner or master of the mechanically propelled vessel to which the certificate relates." By the Gazette Notification dated 4th August, 1993 (Annexure A) referred to above the Government in exercise of power under Sub-sec. 1(b) of sec. 4 of the Act, appointed the Motor Vehicle Inspectors for different areas as surveyer for the purpose of survey of the mechanically propelled vessels plying in the territorial jurisdiction of Bihar and not that he has been vested with the power under sec. 9(1) of the Act, to grant survey certificate which exclusively is vested in the State Government or a person appointed by them in this behalf under Sub-sec. (2) read with Sub-sec. (4) of sec. 9 on payment. Obviously the Motor Vehicle Inspector has not been appointed by the State Government to grant certificate of survey in view of the provisions contained in proviso to Sub-sec. (4) which provides that no delegation shall be made under Sub-sec. (2) so as to authorise the grant of certificate of survey by the surveyer who made the declaration pf survey u/s. 7. sec. 4(1)(b) authorises the State Government to appoint so many persons to be surveyers at the said places as it is fit for the purposes of this Act. sec. 7 gives power in the surveyer to issue declaration of survey and sec. 8 (1) provides that the owner or master of a mechanically propelled vessel to whom a declaration is given u/s. 7 shall, within fourteen days after the date of the receipt thereof, send the declaration to such officer as the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint in this behalf. u/s. 9 as I have already dealt above the power to grant certificate of survey is vested in the State Government or the person-appointed by it or delegated with such power under Sub-sec. (2) and Sub-sec. (4) respectively. 9. Learned Government Advocate appearing for the State has supported the view of the Secretary with respect to the powers to be exercised under Secs. 4, 7 and 9 of the Act, and submitted that under some confusion but in good faith the Collector (respondent No. 4) has taken different stand. (2) and Sub-sec. (4) respectively. 9. Learned Government Advocate appearing for the State has supported the view of the Secretary with respect to the powers to be exercised under Secs. 4, 7 and 9 of the Act, and submitted that under some confusion but in good faith the Collector (respondent No. 4) has taken different stand. Learned Government Advocate further submitted that in order to ensure security and safety of the passengers the State Government is fully empowered to issue instructions in the light of the provisions of the Act, which is the prime responsibility of the State Government to ensure security/safety of the passengers and as such, the Secretary has in all fairness rightly issued the instruction contained in Annexure J keeping in view the various provisions contained in Secs. 4, 7 and 9 of the Act. 10. Mr. Giri, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 10, has submitted that the writ petition is fit to be dismissed on the sole ground that the petitioner is assailing the terms and conditions laid down in Annexures A and B after having lost to get the settlement. In support of this he has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Kumar Arvind Chand Singh v. State of Bihar and Ors., reported in 1997 (2) BLJ 676 . He further contended that the petitioner himself being not qualified as per the advertisement cannot assail the settlement with respondent No. 10 as he cannot get any relief. According to him, Annexure A is in compliance of the order of the High Court and thus there is no infirmity in grant of certificate by the Motor Vehicle Inspector. As regards instructions issued by the Secretary he submitted that the Collector and the Commissioner are the competent authority and the Secretary has no say in the matter. 11. I am unable to accept the submission of Mr. Giri that the Secretary to the Government has no role to play in the matter. It is not disputed that the settlement can be made only on satisfying with the conditions/requirements of the Act, and u/s. 9 the State Government alone is competent to grant or authorise to grant certificate of survey without which no settlement, can be made. Giri that the Secretary to the Government has no role to play in the matter. It is not disputed that the settlement can be made only on satisfying with the conditions/requirements of the Act, and u/s. 9 the State Government alone is competent to grant or authorise to grant certificate of survey without which no settlement, can be made. Apart from this, it is the duty/responsibility of the State Government to ensure security/safety of the passengers travelling by such ferries and as such, I do not find any infirmity in the instructions issued by the Secretary on, behalf of the State Government, As regards maintainability of this writ petition at the instance of the petitioner the decision relied upon by Mr. Giri is not at all applicable. In the said case this Court on consideration that the petitioner having participated in the proceeding, obtained favourable orders at one stage, cannot question competence or jurisdiction of the Commissioner merely because he later passed certain orders which were not palatable to him. By the subsequent order the commissioner did nothing on his own, he merely refused to grant further time to the petitioner and allowed the Collector to settle the ferry with respondent No. 3 as per term of the settlement/auction itself and this Court held that the submission of the petitioner regarding jurisdiction of the Commissioner to pass the impugned orders is wholly misconceived and rejected the same. The Court also found no error in the impugned order warranting interference and as such, dismissed the writ petition. In the present case in view of the admitted fact that Respondent No. 10 did not possess the required survey certificate from the competent authority, this Court finds it difficult to uphold the validity of settlement or issuance of Parwana in his favour more so as it involves the security/safety of passengers and their belongings. As regards Annexure A I have already discussed above that the same has been issued u/s. 4 (1 )(b) and not u/s. 9 delegating the power in M.V.I to issue certificate of survey. 12. The writ application is thus allowed. The impugned orders, contained in Annexures 25, 33 and 35, are quashed. As regards Annexure A I have already discussed above that the same has been issued u/s. 4 (1 )(b) and not u/s. 9 delegating the power in M.V.I to issue certificate of survey. 12. The writ application is thus allowed. The impugned orders, contained in Annexures 25, 33 and 35, are quashed. In the facts and circumstances the State Government is directed to make adequate arrangement and/or to appoint/delegate the power u/s. 9 for grant of certificate of survey to ensure restoration of the ferry service in accordance with law at the earliest keeping in view the need of the people and their safety and security. The respondents may proceed with the settlement of ferry in question afresh only after ensuring and complying with the requirements, in accordance with law.