Judgment 1. In both the writ petitions, the petitioners pray for quashing the order dated 29.2.2008 passed by Respondent No. 3, Deputy Development Commissioner-cum-Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Munger, by which the settlement of six ferries was made in favour of Respondent No. 5 accepting the offer made by him after cancelling the date of bid and, accordingly, both the matters have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The short facts of the case are that by notice published in daily newspaper (Annexure-A to the counter-affidavit), the settlement of six ferries (apart from other types of settlement) was sought to be made by open auction for a reserve jama of Rs. 12,31,000/-, with respect to which 25% i.e. Rs. 3,07,750/- was required to be deposited as security amount and three date for settlement were fixed on 23.1.2008, 6.2.2008 and 19,2.2008 respectively at about 12 noon. The admitted position is that on 23.1.2008 and 6.2.2008, no person appeared to take the settlement but on 19.2.2008 an amount of Rs. 3,07,750/- was deposited on behalf of the petitioner Sita Kund Nao Yatayat Swawlambi Sahkari Samiti Ltd. However, the said Boatmens Co-operative Society was not prepared to take the settlement on the reserve jama of Rs. 12,31,000/-. Accordingly, a fresh notice was issued on 22.2.2008, copies of which notice were given to the petitioners of both the cases fixing the date of settlement on 3.3.2008 at 11 A.M. but with further stipulation that if before that date any person was willing to take the settlement on reserve jama amount of Rs. 12,31,000/ - then the settlement would be made with him and the settlement date fixed for 3.3.2008 would be automatically cancelled. 3. The petitioner in CWJC No. 4633 of 2008, namely, Lallu Pokhar Naw Yatayat Swawlambi Sahkari Samity is the previous settlee for the period ending on 31.3.2008. Respondent No. 5 Saket Kumar, on the basis of the said notice which admittedly has not been published in any newspaper but only in the office of the District Board, came forward to take the settlement on the reserve jama of Rs. 12,31,000/- by making an offer on 25.2.2008 and accordingly, the impugned order dated 29.2.2008 making the settlement in his favour was issued and the date of settlement fixed for 3.3.2008 was cancelled. 12,31,000/- by making an offer on 25.2.2008 and accordingly, the impugned order dated 29.2.2008 making the settlement in his favour was issued and the date of settlement fixed for 3.3.2008 was cancelled. The petitioners are aggrieved by the said action of the Zila Parishad authorities and accordingly challenged the same by filing these two writ petitions. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners in C.W.J.C. No. 4476 of 2008 submits that the petitioners being a Boatmens Co-operative Society were entitled to be considered on priority basis for the settlement of Ferries in terms of the Circular contained in memo no. 736 dated 9.3.2002 (Annexure-5) issued by the Secretary, Govt. of Bihar in the Co-operative Department, in which all the Collectors have been requested to direct the Settlement Officers in their Districts to make the settlement with the concerned Boatmens Co-operative Societies/ Self-Supporting Cooperative Societies if they are available and not by open bid, on the reserve jama fixed for the period of three years so that the benefit of the settlement is available to the members of such Boatmens Co-operative Society. It is submitted that in view of the directions of the State Government contained in the said Circular, the petitioner having expressed his intention to take the settlement by depositing the security amount of Rs. 3,07,750/ - on 19.2.2008 the settlement ought to have been made in favour of the petitioners in preference to an individual, Respondent No. 5 as has been done in the present matter. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 4633 of 2008, on the other hand, sought to rely upon the provisions of Section 9 of the Bengal Ferries Act which, according to him, requires the respondent-authorities to make the settlement in favour of the Co-operative Societies vis-a-vis the private persons. It is submitted that the petitioner is not only a Co-operative Society but being a settlee for the period ending on 31.3.2008, it had an existing right to get the settlement renewed in its favour. It is further submitted by learned counsel that the original notice was issued in the newspaper fixing three dates for settlement by open bid and thus any amendment to the said settlement could have been only made by publishing the amended notification in the newspapers so that wider publicity could be given to the same. It is further submitted by learned counsel that the original notice was issued in the newspaper fixing three dates for settlement by open bid and thus any amendment to the said settlement could have been only made by publishing the amended notification in the newspapers so that wider publicity could be given to the same. It is argued that the authorities of the Zila Parishad could not have, on their own, changed the conditions stipulated in the original public notice and in a hush hush manner fixed another date for bid and also come up with a new stipulation regarding the settlement being made even prior to the date of auction on the reserve jama if offered by any party. It is stated by learned counsel that the petitioner on learning about the settlement notice . dated 22.2.2008 came forward on 3.3.2008 to deposit the security amount of 25% of the reserve jama so that it could participate in the bid on 3.3.2008 and taken the settlement in its favour but the respondent authorities made the settlement in favour of Respondent No. 5 by private negotiation even prior to the date fixed for the bid by passing the impugned order in an illegal manner. 6. It is submitted by learned counsel that the object of Section 9 of the Bengal Ferries Act is to generate the maximum amount of revenue for the Zila Parishad which are admittedly in need of resources and the same is only possible if a public bid is made for the settlement of the Ghat, etc. It is urged that if the petitioners had been allowed to offer bid then they would have definitely made a higher bid for taking settlement of the Ghat. It is also argued by learned counsel that the internal notice by pasting the same on the Notice Board in the office of the Zila Parishad cannot be considered as valid when the original notice was published in the newspaper and thus the interested parties were not given an opportunity to participate and offer a higher bid in the matter. Learned counsel also refers to Section 9 of the Act and argues that if the public auction is to be given up, then reasons for the same are to be assigned but the same has not been done by the Respondents. 7. Learned counsel also refers to Section 9 of the Act and argues that if the public auction is to be given up, then reasons for the same are to be assigned but the same has not been done by the Respondents. 7. Learned counsel for the Zila Parishad, on the other hand, has sought to justify the action of the authorities stating that a public notice was given in the newspaper on which three successive dates had been fixed for public auction in order to obtain the highest amount possible for the settlement of the Ghat in question. It is stated that since no one turned up on the first two dates of settlement and on the third date also one of the petitioners had turned up but it was not willing to accept the settlement on the reserve jama; in the said circumstances, learned counsel argues that only option left before the Zila Parishad authorities was to issue the fresh settlement notice on 22.2.2008 fixing the date of public auction on 3.3.2008, but with further stipulation that the settlement can be made on the reserve jama if any party is willing to offer the same even prior to that date and in that circumstance no public bid would be held. 8. Learned counsel for the Zila Parishad urges that the said action of the Zila Parishad is bona fide and was essential in order to protect the public revenue. It is further pointed out by him that both the petitioners had been individually informed by serving copies of the notice dated 22.2.2008 upon them and thus they were aware of the said stipulation and they also could have turned up for taking the settlement on the reserve jama but they have not done so and only after the settlement was made on the reserve jama with Respondent No. 5, the petitioners have now come forward taking all false pleas. It is urged by learned counsel that it is not open to the petitioners of both the writ petitions to challenge the action of the Zila Parishad when they themselves have not availed of the benefit of taking the settlement on the reserve jama on the three dates fixed for public auction by the original notice nor they have sought to take the benefit of the settlement notice issued on 22.2.2008. Having failed to take the settlement on the reserve jama, it is not open to these petitioners, according to him, to challenge the action of the Zila Parishad authorities or the bona fide of the same. 9. Learned counsel for Respondent No. 5 in both the cases has adopted the arguments of learned counsel for the Zila Parishad. 10. On a consideration of the rival submissions of the parties, this court does not find force in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners. So far as reliance upon Section 9 of the Bengal Ferries Act, 1885 is concerned, particularly on the proviso to the same introduced by the Bihar Amendment, the same cannot enure to the benefit of the petitioners since the proviso confers the benefit only upon the Co-operative Societies registered under the Bihar and Orissa Co-operative Societies Act, 1935 whereas both the petitioners-Societies have been registered under the Bihar Self Supporting Co-operative Societies Act, 1996. The provision being statutory in nature, it is not open to the executive authorities to confer any benefit of statutory nature to any other Co-operative Society by issuing the executive instructions. Moreover, even the reliance upon the Circular dated 9.3.2002 is misplaced since the said Circular clearly mentions that the priority should be given to the Boatmens Co-operative Societies/Self-Supporting Co-operative Societies provided they are willing to take the settlement on the reserve jama, whereas the petitioners Co-operative Societies did not come forward to take the settlement on the reserve jama till the date the impugned order dated 29.2.2008 was passed by the Zila Parishad. 11. The further submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that the first notice having been published in the newspaper, it was not open to the authorities to make settlement on the reserve jama by changing the stipulation therein also does not appear to be correct. From the provisions of Section 9 of the Bengal Ferries Act, 1885 , it is clear that for good and sufficient reasons it is open to the authorities to make the settlement after withdrawing the tolls from auction. 12. In the present matter, this Court finds that the authorities have considered the fact that on three dates fixed for making settlement no person had come forward to take the settlement on the reserve jama and thus in order to protect the revenue, they had rightly issued the notification. 12. In the present matter, this Court finds that the authorities have considered the fact that on three dates fixed for making settlement no person had come forward to take the settlement on the reserve jama and thus in order to protect the revenue, they had rightly issued the notification. In the circumstances no further publication in the newspaper was required. The settlement notice duly informed both the petitioners-Societies about the date of settlement by public bid on 3.3.2008 and also about further condition that it would be open to any party to take the settlement on the reserve jama itself prior to the said date. The petitioners having not taken the benefit of the said stipulation it is not open to them after the settlement has been made with another party to challenge the action of the authorities, which appears to be bona fide and in the interest of revenue. 13. Thus, there is no merit in the writ petitions and they are, accordingly, dismissed. 14. The authorities of the Zila Parishad are directed to return the amount of security deposit deposited by the petitioner Sitakund Co-operative Society within a period of three weeks from today as already ordered by Respondent No. 3 on 19.2.2008.