Amitava Roy, J - The proceedings witness a tussle for do­minion over settlement right of ferry ghats nomenclatured as Cinatoli Bogoriguri Neamatighat (for short hereafter referred to as the Cinatoli Ghat) and Phuloni Bogoriguri Neamati Ghat (for short hereafter referred to as the Phuloni Ghat). The legal bout was ini­tiated with the institution of WP(C) 31727 2010 laying the challenge to the Notice Invit­ing Tender dated 10.5.2010 issued by the President of the Ujani Majuli Anchalik Panchayat (for short referred to as the Anchalik Panchayat) initiating thereby a pro­cess amongst others for settling the Phuloni Ghat claiming it to be located within the terri­torial limits of Ratanpur Gayan Gaon Panchayat under it for the period 1.7.2010 to 30.6.2011. By order dated 4.6.2010, this Court while issuing notice of motion, the re­spondent No. 6 therein namely the President/Chairperson of the Ujani Majnli Anchalik Panchayat, Jorhat, was in the interim permit­ted to receive the tender papers in response to the impugned NIT but was restrained from opening the same until further orders. 2. Misc. Case 2106/2010 is registered on an interlocutory application by the aforemen­tioned respondent No. 6 seeking vacation and/or alteration and/or modification of this restraint. The parties have exchanged plead­ings in this misc. case. By order dated 3.9.2010 passed in WP(C) 3172/2010, this Court, on a prima facie analysis of the issues involved, required the Sub-Divisional Officer (C), Majuli, Garamur, to submit a fresh re­port on the physical location of the Cinatoli Ghat and the Phuloni Ghat for an appropriate adjudication thereof. A report dated 22.9.2010 was accordingly submitted by the aforementioned State authority. 3. It was thereafter that WP(C) 5770/2010 was instituted by the Anchalik Panchayat and its President seeking annulment of the notifi­cation No. TWT-20/2008/102 dated 1.9.2009 issued by the Principal Secretary to the Government of Assam, Transport De­partment, declaring inter alia the Cinatoli-Bogoriguri Neamati Ghat to be a public ferry in exercise of powers conferred under sec­tion 4 of the Northern India Ferries Act, 1878 as well as the order dated 17.3.2010 of the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Assam, Transport Department, settling the aforementioned ferry service in favour of Shri Padma Dhar Das (writ petitioner in WP(C) 3172/2010) for a period of one year w.e.f. 1.4.2010 to 31.3.2011. 4. 4. This Court issued notice of motion on 12.10.2010 and in the interregnum directed that the petitioners therein would be allowed to operate the Phuloni-Bogoriguri Neamati Ghat in accordance with law. The petitioner in WP(C) 3172/2010 has by his interlocu­tory application registered as Misc. Case 3505/2010 sought for vacation, modification and alteration of this interim order as well. The Sub-Divisional Officer (C), Majuli, there­after by his order dated 26.10.2010 permit­ted the Inland Water Transport Department, Assam and the Anchalik Panchayat to ply their ferries on alternate days on roster basis. 5. I have heard Mr. P. Pathak, Sr. Advo­cate assisted by Ms. P. Barman and Ms. Changkakoti, Advocates for the writ petitioner in WP(C) 3172/2010 and respondent No. 9 in WP(C) 5770/2010, Mr. A. Bhuyan and Mr. U. Rajbongshi, Advocates appearing for the Inland Water Transport Department, Govern­ment of Assam, and Mr. D. Saikia, Advocate appearing for the Anchalik Panchayat in both the proceedings. For the sake of convenience, the writ petitioner in WP(C) 3172/2010 would be referred to as the petitioner while traversing the pleadings on record. 6. The recorded case of the petitioner is that he is a Class-I Contractor registered with the various departments of the State of Assam. The Government of Assam in the Transport Department vide notification No. 1 WT-20/2008/102 dated 1.9.2009 in exercise of pow­ers under section 4 of the Northern India Ferries Act, 1878 (for short hereafter referred to as the Act) had declared 26 major ferries on the river Brahmaputra, Barak and its tribu­taries covering several Districts as public fer­ries including Cinatoli Bogoriguri Neamatighat (for short hereafter referred to as the Cinatoli Ghat situated in the District of Jorhat. The Executive Engineer in the IWT Division, Dibrugarh, Assam, issued a Notice Inviting Tender bearing No. ESF 18/2009-10 dated 19.12.2009 for settlement of various ferry services for the financial year 2010-2011 in­cluding Cinatoli Bogoriguri Neamatighat Ferry Service (for short hereafter referred to as the Cinatoli Ferry Services). The petitioner responded thereto for the aforenamed ferry service and was eventually settled therewith at his bid of Rs. 1,25,000/- w.e.f. 1.4.2010 to 31.3.2011 under Rule 19(b) of the Con­trol and Management of Ferry Rules, 1968 (for short hereafter referred to as the Rules). The petitioner responded thereto for the aforenamed ferry service and was eventually settled therewith at his bid of Rs. 1,25,000/- w.e.f. 1.4.2010 to 31.3.2011 under Rule 19(b) of the Con­trol and Management of Ferry Rules, 1968 (for short hereafter referred to as the Rules). Pursuant to the order of settlement dated 17.3.2010 issued by the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Assam, Transport De­partment, he made necessary deposits as re­quired, executed a lease agreement and com­pleted all other formalities and was thereafter handed over the possession of the said Ferry Service on 22.4.2010 whereafter, he had been operating it in full compliance of the terms and conditions prescribed therefor. 7. It was at that stage that the Anchalik Panchayat by the impugned NIT dated 10.5.2010 (Annexure G to the writ petition) invited tenders for the settlement inter alia of the Phuloni Ghat for the term 1.7.2010 to 30.6.2011. According to the petitioner, the Phuloni Ghat offered for settlement is one and the same settled with him for the ferry service by the IWT with a little variation in the name. He has assailed this initiative on the part of the Anchalik Panchayat to be lacking in juris­diction and also in contravention of the Act as well as Rule 35 of the Rules (as amended in 1976) in particular and thus unconstitu­tional, null and void. The respondents have not filed their pleadings in the writ petition. 8. The Anchalik Panchayat in its interim application while refuting the assailment has averred that the Phuloni Ghat is a very old ferry service situated at Cinatoli, Majuli un­der the Ratanpur Gaon Panchayat and for the last two decades had been settled by it by annual tenders. According to it, this Ghat, was earlier nomenclatured as Phuloni Neamati Ghat, which since 2006-2007 has been re-christened as Phuloni Bogoriguri Neamati Ghat. With reference to the contemporane­ous records, it has insisted that the Phuloni Ghat had been settled by it through succes­sive processes since 2002 without any break, the last of the settlements being by order dated 29.6.2009 for the term July 2009 to June 2010. With reference to the contemporane­ous records, it has insisted that the Phuloni Ghat had been settled by it through succes­sive processes since 2002 without any break, the last of the settlements being by order dated 29.6.2009 for the term July 2009 to June 2010. It, however, admitted that the IWT, Assam, had by the aforementioned notifica­tion dated 1.9.2009 declared the Cinatoli Ghat as a public ferry on the Brahmaputra River whereafter through a process initiated by the NIT dated 19.12.2009, the Cinatoli Ferry Service had been settled with the writ petitioner for the financial year 2010-2011 and that he after taking possession thereof on 22.4.2010 has started operating it. 9. The Director, IWT Department, had issued a settlement order being IWT123/03/6 dated 11.8.2003 for the operation of com­mercial passenger and cargo ferry service from Phulani (Majuli) to Neamati (Jorhat) in favour of one Shri Lalit Das on experimental basis. The settlement was challenged before this Court in WP(C) 7945/2003 by one Shri Jayanta Bora who was the settlement holder of Phuloni-Neamati Ghat for the period 1.7.2003 to 30.6.2004 issued by the Anchalik Panchayat. The impugned order of settlement dated 11.8.2003 was stayed by this Court whereafter at the instance of Shri Lalit Das and following a scrutiny of the feasibility of a new ferry ghat from Bogoriguri to Neamati, a report was submitted on 9.1.2004 by the Commercial Officer, IWT Commercial Ser­vice, Dibrugarh. to the Director, IWT, Assam, disclosing that there was no passenger and cargo feny service within 3.8 kms. distance and that therefore the Bogoriguri to Neamati Ferry Ghat might be allotted to Shri Lalit Das. The Anchalik Panchayat therefore maintained that Shri Lalit Das thereafter was allowed to operate the Bogoriguri-Neamati commercial cargo cum passenger ferry service for a pe­riod of three months on experimental basis and the term was extended thereafter from time to time till 2008. 10. The Anchalik Panchayat has maintained that the Cinatoli Ferry Service and the Phuloni Ferry Service are two different Ferry Ser­vices operating from two different Ghats, namely Cinatoli Ghat and Phuloni Ghat. It has admitted as well that the Cinatoli Ghat is un­der the control of the IWT, Assam, and it is competent to offer settlement thereof by an­nual tenders. It, however, has claimed exclu­sive right to offer settlement of Phuloni Ghat as it had been doing for the last few decades. It has admitted as well that the Cinatoli Ghat is un­der the control of the IWT, Assam, and it is competent to offer settlement thereof by an­nual tenders. It, however, has claimed exclu­sive right to offer settlement of Phuloni Ghat as it had been doing for the last few decades. According to it, the notification dated 1.9.2009 does not mention about the closure of the Phuloni Ferry Service controlled by it under the provisions of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994 (for short hereafter referred to as the Panchayat Act). It has asserted that the distance between the Phuloni Ferry Service and the Cinatoli Ferry Service is almost 6 k.m.s and is no way less than 3 kms as men­tioned in Rule 35 of the Rules. In endorse­ment of this averment, the Anchalik Panchayat has referred to a report submitted by the Circle Officer, Majuli Revenue Circle, Kamalabari on 6.8.2008 to the Sub-Divi­sional Officer (C), Majuli, Garamur, to the effect that the distance between the Phuloni Ghat and Cinatoli Ghat is about 6.2 k.m.s. While pleading its absolute dominion over the Phuloni Ghat/Ferry Service in the matter of control and settlement thereof, it has asserted against authority of the Transport Department to interfere with its affairs pertaining thereto. Vacation and/or modification and/or alteration of the interim interdiction by order dated 4.6.2010 have thus been sought for on this contention. 11. The writ petitioner in his affidavit in the misc. application though admitted the ex­istence of the Phuloni Ghat till 2008-09 has insisted that with the notification dated 1.9.2009, the same had become nonest and thus the Anchalik Panchayat has no jurisdic­tion to invite tenders to settle the Phuloni Ferry Service. According to him, the Phuloni Ghat lies within a distance of 1 k.m from the Cinatoli Ghat as per the report of the Lat Mandal and Kanungo submitted from the Office of the Circle officer, Majuli Revenue Circle, Kamalabari, on 11.6.2010. It has maintained that though the Anchalik Panchayat had been operating the Phuloni Ghat with the declara­tion of the Cinatoli Ghat to be a public ferry by the Transport Department of the State in exercise of powers under section 4 of the Act, the operation of Phuloni Ferry Service within the distance of 3.2 k.m.s on either side thereof is prohibited under Rules. 12. 12. The IWT has admitted as well that Cinatoli Ferry Service and Phuloni Ferry Ser­vice are two distinct services but separated by a distance of 1 k.m. only. While denying the correctness of the report dated 6.8.2008 of the Circle Officer, Majuli Revenue Circle, Kamalabari, (Annexure "L" to the interim application of the Anchalik Panchayat), the answering respondent has relied on the cer­tificate dated 11.6.2010 of the Circle Officer, Majuli Revenue Circle, Kamabari, as referred to by the writ petitioner to contend that the distance between Phuloni Ghat and Bogoriguri Ghat is about one k.m. It has further clarified that the Cinatoli Ghat is located between Phuloni Ghat and Bogoriguri Ghat. Referring to Rule 35 of the Rules, the answering re­spondent has pleaded that with the declara­tion of the Cinatoli Ghat to be a public ferry under section 4 of the Act, it is impermissible for the Anchalik Panchayat to operate any other ferry service within 3.2 k.m.s. thereof. According to it, even under section 106 of the Panchayat Act, an Anchalik Panchayat can settle a public ferry other than a Government ferry located within its territorial jurisdiction. The IWT has thus sought to reinforce the contentions of the writ petitioner in its chal­lenge to the impugned NIT. 13. The department has maintained that the Cinatoli-Bogoriguri Neamati Ghat was notified to be a Government Ferry vide noti­fication dated 1.9.2009 which was published in the official gazette. It has asserted that this Court in its verdict rendered in WP(C) 2807/2007 and WP(C) 3933/2009 (provide the dates) had adjudged that qua public ferries established or created under section 4 of the Northern India Ferries Act, 1878 (for short hereafter referred to as the Act) whose one of the ends met a Government road or Gov­ernment land or embankment, no Anchalik Panchayat would have the authority to make the settlement thereof. According to it, there is nothing on record to demonstrate that at any point of time, the Anchalik Panchayat had awarded settlement of the Phuloni Ghat fol­lowing the mandatory provisions of the Anchalik Panchayat Act 1994 (for short here­after referred to as the Panchayat Act) more particularly section 106 thereof. 14. According to it, there is nothing on record to demonstrate that at any point of time, the Anchalik Panchayat had awarded settlement of the Phuloni Ghat fol­lowing the mandatory provisions of the Anchalik Panchayat Act 1994 (for short here­after referred to as the Panchayat Act) more particularly section 106 thereof. 14. The Anchalik Panchayat in its endeav­our to annihilate the notification dated 1.9.2009 and the settlement of the Cinatoli Ghat in favour of the petitioner has in its writ petition asserted on oath that the said Ghat had not been declared as yet a Government Ferry. It has in addition averred that vide the said notification, the Cinatoli Ghat has been for the first time declared to be a public ferry on the river Brahmaputra. The impugned no­tification is in contravention of Rule 35 of the Control and Management of Ferries Rule 1968 (for short hereafter referred to as the Rules) as thereunder no person can estab­lish, maintain or work a ferry to or from any point within a distance of 3.2 k.m. from the limits of a public ferry without prior approval of the competent authority declared by the Government under section 13 of the Act. It has contended that as it had been settling the Phuloni Ghat since two decades in terms of section 106 of the Panchayat Act without a complaint/objections from any quarters, the Transport Department of the State ought to have taken a prior approval of such compe­tent authority before notifying the Cinatoli Ghat as a public ferry, the same being located within a distance of 3.2 k.m.s of the Phuloni Ghat. While pleading that the income from the settle­ment of the Phuloni Ghat constitutes a prior source of revenue for it to conduct its activi­ties, it has impeached the notification dated 1.9.2009 to be obviously illegal and nonest in law. 15. A departure in the response of the Transport Department of the State in its plead­ings in WP(C) 5770/2010 is noticeable. It has categorically averred that the Anchalik Panchayat had been settling the Phuloni Ghat in violation of the provisions of the Panchayat Act and the Assam Panchayat (Financial) Rules 2002. It has denied the Anchalik Panchayat's contention of contravention of Rule 35 in the publication of the notification dated 1.9.2009 and has asserted it to be in deference to the adjudication made by this Court in WP(C) 2807/2007 and WP(C) 3933/2009. 16. It has denied the Anchalik Panchayat's contention of contravention of Rule 35 in the publication of the notification dated 1.9.2009 and has asserted it to be in deference to the adjudication made by this Court in WP(C) 2807/2007 and WP(C) 3933/2009. 16. The petitioner in his counter in WP(C) 5770/2010 has stated that the notification dated 1.9.2009 though duly marked to the President, Zila Parishad, Jorhat, no objection thereto was raised at any point of time and that, therefore, the IWT, Government of Assam, issued a tender notice on 19.12.2009 for settlement of the Cinatoli Ghat and on the completion of the process, the same was awarded to him. He has questioned the bonafide of the challenge in WP(C) 5770/2010 and has contended estoppel against the Anchalik Panchayat, Phuloni Ghat being lo­cated within 3.2. k.m.s. of the Cinatoli Ghat declared to be a public ferry by the notifica­tion under section 4 of the Act. Referring to section 106(4) of the Panchayat Act as well it has been pleaded that the impugnment of the notification dated 1.9.2009 is miscon­ceived. The petitioner has repudiated the ar­rangement effected by the Sub-Divisional Officer(C),Majuli,on26/27.7.2010permit-ting the IWT Department, Assam, and the Anchalik Panchayat to ply their ferries on the alternative days and has contended it to be in violation of the interim order dated 4.6.2010 passed in WP(C) 3172/2010. 17. Mr. Pathak has urged that with the declaration of the Cinatoli Ferry Service to be a public ferry, the Phuloni Ferry Service, even in existence prior thereto had been ren­dered nonest and thus the impugned NIT is patently without jurisdiction and is liable to be adjudged as such. Even otherwise as it is apparent on the face of the records that the Phuloni Ghat lies within a distance of 3.2 k.m,s. from the Cinatoli Ghat, in terms of rule 35 of the Rules, the Anchalik Panchayat even under the Panchayat Act has no competence to initiate a process for settlement as endeav­oured by the impugned NIT. 18. Mr. Saikia per contra has argued that the proclamation of the Cinatoli Ferry Ser­vice to be a public ferry by the IWT, does not ipso facto efface the existence of Phuloni Ferry Service, a distinctly different and inde­pendent entity in existence for several de­cades. 18. Mr. Saikia per contra has argued that the proclamation of the Cinatoli Ferry Ser­vice to be a public ferry by the IWT, does not ipso facto efface the existence of Phuloni Ferry Service, a distinctly different and inde­pendent entity in existence for several de­cades. Referring to the annexure to the in­terim application of the Anchalik Panchayat, the learned Counsel has sought to impress upon this Court that the fact that the Anchalik Panchayat had been settling the Phuloni Ghat through annual tenders from 2002-2010 is an impeachable testimony thereof. While con­tending that under Section 106 of the Panchayat Act, the Anchalik Panchayat, is the supreme authority to the exclusion of all con­cerned to conduct the affairs of the Phulani Ghat as well as to offer its settlement, the chal­lenge laid is wholly misconceived. Relying on the certificate dated 6.8.2008 issued by the Circle Officer, Majuli Revenue Circle, Kamalabari, the learned Counsel has argued that even on the norm of distance as pre­scribed by Rule 35. the Anchalik Panchayat cannot be debarred from settling the Phuloni Ghat and thus not only the interim restraint ought to be vacated, the writ petition also is liable to be rejected. The learned Counsel emphasised that the settlement of the Phuloni Ghat by the Anchalik Panchayat over the years had been to the knowledge of the IWT, Assam, as the copies of the orders to that effect had always been marked to it. In order to underline the primacy of the Anchalik Panchayat the learned Counsel has indicated that the settlement of the Cinatoli Ghat awarded to Lolit Das had been on experi­mental basis and stood modified in view of the challenge made in WP(C) 7945/2003 by the settlement holder of Phuloni Ghat for the year 2003-04. As the facts and circumstances of the case substantiate that the Cinatoli Ferry Service located within 3.2 k.m. of the Phuloni Ghat Ferry is sought to be assigned the status of a public ferry without obtaining approval of the competent authority under Rule 35 of the Rules, it is non-existent for all intents and purposes, he urged. According to him, the notification dated 1.9.2009, is void as it tends to establish a new public ferry without the approval of the competent authority under Rule 35 of the Rules. In support of his above pleas, Mr. According to him, the notification dated 1.9.2009, is void as it tends to establish a new public ferry without the approval of the competent authority under Rule 35 of the Rules. In support of his above pleas, Mr. Saikia has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Jayanta Bora & Ors. Vs. State of Assam & Ors., 2006(3) GLT844 19. Referring to Section 31 and 106 of the Pahchayat Act. Mr. Bhuyan has urged that if one end of a ferry ghat land within or touches a municipal area it (ferry ghat) would slip be­yond its (Anchalik Panchayat) jurisdiction. While reiterating that the materials on record do not justify that the Anchalik Panchayat had been settling the Phuloni Ghat in accordance with the provisions of the Panchayat Act and the Assam Panchayat Financial Rules, 2002, the learned Counsel, however, admitted the permissibility of co-existence of two ferries within 3.2. km of each other with the approval of the competent authority as sanctioned by Rule 35 of the Rules. He endorsed the pleas raised on behalf of the petitioner and urged in favour of the validity of the notification dated 1.9.2009. 20. The pleadings of the parties and the arguments developed on the basis thereof have been duly analysed. Significantly the existence of two separate ferry ghats/services namely Phuloni Ghat/Ferry Service and Cinatoli Ghat/Ferry Service prior to the issu­ance of the notification dated 1.9.2009 is a demonstrated fact. That the aforementioned notification declaring Cinatoli Ghat to be a public ferry has been published in exercise of powers under Section 4 of the Act is also a matter of record. The pleadings of the Anchalik Panchayat and the documents in supplementation thereof establish the factum of settlement of Phuloni Ghat by it from the year 2002 till June 2010. The last settlement for the term July 2009 to June 2010 there­fore spans beyond the date of the impugned notification i.e. 1.9.2009. The materials on record testify the consensus of the IWT and the Anchalik Panchayat about the settlement of the aforementioned two ferry service re­spectively by them for successive terms be­fore the issuance of the aforementioned noti­fication. The factual background therefore attests the existence of the said two ferry ghat/service till after the notification atleast upto 30.6.2010. 21. The materials on record testify the consensus of the IWT and the Anchalik Panchayat about the settlement of the aforementioned two ferry service re­spectively by them for successive terms be­fore the issuance of the aforementioned noti­fication. The factual background therefore attests the existence of the said two ferry ghat/service till after the notification atleast upto 30.6.2010. 21. The impugned NIT dated 10.5.2010 floated by the Anchalik Panchayat for settle­ment of Phuloni Ghat for 2010-2011 rein­forces its assertion of the existence thereof as a ferry ghat/service independent of the Cinatoli Ghat/Service. As evinced by the ri­val pleadings and the contentions advanced whereas the petitioner seeks invalidation of the NIT dated 7.5.2010 in the teeth of dec­laration of Cinatoli Ghat to be a public ferry under section 4 of the Act and the location of the Phuloni Ghat within a distance of 3.2. KM therefrom being violative of the prescription of Rule 35, the Anchalik Panchayat has im­peached the validity of the notification dated 1.9.2009 being bereft of the obligatory com­pliance of the prior approval of the compe­tent authority under section 13 thereof (Northern India Ferries Act, 1878). This insistence is heuristic of its (Anchalik Panchayat) accep­tance of the distance of separation between the two ferry ghat/service to be less than 3.2 K.M. as contemplated in Rule 35. 22. The Act, a legislation to regulate ferry in Northern India envisages public ferries as well as private ferries. Ferry as defined in sec­tion 3 is of inclusive disposition and envisions within its domain a bridge of boats, pontoons or rafts, a swing bridge, a flying bridge and a temporary bridge, and the approaches to, and landing places of, a feny "Government Ferry" as defined in the Rules framed under Section 12 of the Northern India Ferries Act, 1878. means a public ferry at least one of whose limits is on a Government road as defined in the Assam Highways Act, 1928. Section 4 of the Northern India Ferries Act, 1878, em­powers the Provincial Government amongst others to declare what ferries shall be deemed public femes and the respective districts in which, for the purpose of this Act, they shall be deemed to be situated. The Provincial Government thereunder may take possession of a private ferry and declare it to be a public ferry, establish new public ferries, define the limits of any public ferry and discontinue any public ferry which it deems unnecessary. The Provincial Government thereunder may take possession of a private ferry and declare it to be a public ferry, establish new public ferries, define the limits of any public ferry and discontinue any public ferry which it deems unnecessary. Ev­ery such declaration, establishment, definition, change or discontinuance shall be made by notification in the official gazette. The ampli­tude of powers of the Provincial Government encompassed in Section 4 amply testifies the plenary nature thereof. Section 13 of this Act prohibits plying of a private ferry within two miles of a public ferry without the sanction of the Magistrate of the district or of such other officer as the Provincial Government may from time to time appoint in this behalf. vis-­a-vis private ferries under Chapter-Ill of this Act, the Commissioner of the Division may, with the previous sanction of the Provincial Government from time to time, make rules for the maintenance of order and for the safety of passengers and property at ferries other than public ferries. 23. The validity of Section 4 of the Act incidentally is not in challenge. Axiomatically therefore the power of the Provincial Gov­ernment as engrafted therein is thus beyond the ken of the present impugnment. The noti­fication dated 1.9.2009, therefore, does not suffer from want of legislative sanction. Rule 2(b) of the Control and Management of Fer­ries Rules, 1968 also being referred to as the Rules conceives of a ferry as defined and in­terpreted under Section 3 of the Act and in­cludes those specified from time to time and listed in Appendix 'A' thereto. Rule 35 which is of decisive significance qua the present ad­judication deserves to be extracted. 35....No person shall establish, maintain or work a ferry to or from any point within a dis­tance of 3.2. k.m. from the limits of a public ferry without the prior approval of the competent au­thority declared by the Government under sec­tion 13 of the Northern India Ferries Act, 1878. Provided that recognised non-transport ferry/ferries only can run within the distance of 3.2. k.m. on either side of the ferry and no tolls shall be levied on recognised non-transport ferries or on persons, animals or conveyances crossing by a private boat not used for hire without using the approaches to the ferry. The lessee shall have no claim for compensation or remission or re­fund of kist money on this account. k.m. on either side of the ferry and no tolls shall be levied on recognised non-transport ferries or on persons, animals or conveyances crossing by a private boat not used for hire without using the approaches to the ferry. The lessee shall have no claim for compensation or remission or re­fund of kist money on this account. Provided also that any private party allowed to operate his own boats on hire within 3.2. k.m. of any of the points of a public ferry will be liable to pay for each trip, to the lessee, an amount equal to the rate fixed for the type of boat used\by him, as if such boat had been supplied for special trips by the lessee himself, at the rate chargeable therefor as per the toll lists. 24. A plain reading of the above extract would unequivocally proclaim the legislative bar against establishing, maintenance or work­ing of a ferry to and from any point within a distance of 3.2. k.m. from the limits of a pub­lic ferry without the prior approval of the com­petent authority declared by the Government under Section 13 of the Northern India Fer­ries Act, 1878. The first proviso contemplates a relaxation of tolls vis-a-vis recognised non-transport ferries subject to stipulations as mentioned therein. The rigour of the embargo is relaxed as well for the operation of boats on hire by a private party also subject to the conditions as enumerated. This provision of the Rules not only reaffirms the distinctive iden­tities of a public ferry and a private ferry but also unambiguously prohibits the establish­ment, maintenance or working of such a ferry to and from any point within a distance of 3.2. k.m.s'. from the limits of a public ferry. A cu­mulative reading of Section 4 and Rule 35 does not predicate any control or regulation of the power of the Provincial Government conceived of in the former by the latter the text of Rule 35 on a rationale and logical eluci­dation does not pre-suppose the essentiality of the prior approval of the Provincial Gov­ernment amongst others to establish or declare a public ferry under Section 4 of the Act. This is obvious as well from Section 13 of the Act which enjoins such a bar vis-a-vis establish­ment, maintenance or working of a ferry by any person to or from any point within a dis­tance of two miles from the limits of a public ferry. The requirement of sanction contem­plated under Section 13 of the Act, therefore, is inapplicable vis-a-vis any process to be un­dertaken by the Provincial Government for exercising its powers under Section 4 thereof. 25. The Assam Panchayat Act, 1994 (hereafter referred to as the Panchayat Act) followed, the incorporation of Part-XII in the Constitution of India in view of the Constitu­tion (73rd Amendment) Act, 1992 which came into force w.e.f. 24.4.1993. The power of settlement of public ferries and distribution of sale proceeds has been conferred on the ju­risdiction of the Anchalik Panchayat by sec­tion 106 thereof where under all public ferries other than Government ferries within the ter­ritorial jurisdiction of the Anchalik Panchayat shall be settled in the manner prescribed for a period coinciding with and not exceeding one Panchayat financial year by inviting tenders. For the present adjudication reference to two more provisions of the Act as made on behalf of the Anchalik Panchayat would suffice. Sec­tion 31 deals with the constitution of the Anchalik Panchayat which vests in it the ca­pacity of suing or being sued in its corporate name, or acquiring, holding and transferring property, moveable or immovable whether without or within the limits of the area over which it has authority of entering into con­tracts or doing all things necessary, proper and expedient for the purpose for which it is constituted. Section 49 which outlines the general functions of the Anchalik Panchayat mentions about the maintenance of boats, ferries and waterways not under the Govern­ment or any other local bodies. 26. In Jayanta Bora & Ors. Vs. State of Assam & Ors., 2006 (3) GLT844, the key challenge was to a memorandum dated 18/6/2003 issued by the Principal Secretary to the Government of Assam, Transport Depart­ment, arrogating to the said Department of the State and Directorate of Inland Water Transport Department, Assam, the absolute authority to control and manage ferries to the exclusion of all other Government Depart­ments, the Panchayat Institutions and other authorities. Though a dissension between the Anchalik Panchayat and the Inland Water Transport Department with regard to the settlement of the Phuloni Ghat as involved herein found a reference, no debate based on their mutual orientations as a public and a private ferry in the context of Section 4 and Rule 35 had to be addressed therein. The central theme veered around the claim of the Anchalik Panchayat of its exclusive right to settle the public ferries located within its ter­ritorial jurisdiction vis-a-vis the office memo­randum divesting it of such constitutionally and statutorily conferred jurisdiction. This Court on an exhaustive analysis of the provisions of the Act, the Rules thereunder as well as the Panchayat Act held that no independent, overt act of the Government vesting public ferries in the Anchalik Panchayat was warranted and the" Government's role in the settlement pro­cess as envisaged by the provisions of the Panchayat Act was limited in isolated and specific eventualities only. Absence of any le­gal mandate requiring prior vesting of a pub­lic ferry in the jurisdiction of an Anchalik Panchayat was underlined with particular ref­erence to Section 106 of the Panchayat Act as well as Rules framed thereunder. It was observed however that the expression "pub­lic ferry" used in Section 106 comprehended such ferry as declared by the Government under the Act. Tracing the legislative back­ground of the Act, the Rules framed thereun­der as well as the Panchayat Act, it was held that the Northern India Ferries Act to the ex­tent it was incompatible with and or repug­nant to the provisions of the Panchayat Act so far as it relates to public ferry other than government ferry ought to be construed to have been impliedly repealed by the later en­actment. Though with reference to the provisions of the Panchayat Act, the Government's power to supervise the affairs of the Panchayat institutions was recognised, it was held that no all pervasive control over their day to day affairs was discernible and the insignia of the autonomy of such institution attuned to the constitutional edict enshrined in Article 243g was manifest. The impugned office memoran­dum was interfered with. 27. In WP(C) 2807/2007: Sri Bidhan Mudoi Vs. State of Assam & Ors. and WP(C) 3933/2007: Sri Jadav Senapati Vs. The impugned office memoran­dum was interfered with. 27. In WP(C) 2807/2007: Sri Bidhan Mudoi Vs. State of Assam & Ors. and WP(C) 3933/2007: Sri Jadav Senapati Vs. State of Assam & Ors., this Court on an analysis of the provisions of the Act by its judg­ment and order dated 8.1.2008 held that the State Government could exercise the power of control and management only in respect of such a ferry which by way of notification as contemplated in Section 4 thereof had been notified as public ferry. As the femes involved in the two writ petitions were not public fer­ries within the meaning of Section 4 of the Act, it was held that the State Government had no authority or jurisdiction to make settle­ments thereof. Referring to Section 106 of the Panchayat Act, this Court returned a finding that an Anchalik Panchayat had no authority to settle government femes. It was. however, laid down that though every Anchalik Panchayat or for that matter every individual was free to set up its own terry, the same ought not to come within the specified distance of a public ferry notified under Section 4 of the Act. 28. Noticeably none of the two ferry ser­vice/ghats involved namely Cinatoli Ghat/Ferry Service and Phuloni Ghat/Ferry was a public ferry before the issuance of the notifi­cation dated 1.9.2009. The Anchalik Panchayat has not claimed that the Cinatoli Ghat/Ferry is located within its territorial lim­its. This is significant in view of its acceptance that the two Ghats/Ferries are distinctly dif­ferent and independent of each other. As ob­served hereinabove, Rule 35 does not regu­late or control the ambit of Section 4 of the Act. On the declaration of the Cinatoli Ghat/Ferry to be a public ferry under section 4 of the Act, it renders the operation of any other ferry not being a public ferry located within 3.2 k.m.s. from it impermissible under the Rules. The Panchayat Act and more particu­larly Section 106 thereof does not predicate an absolute dominion of the jurisdiction of the Anchalik Panchayat vis-a-vis a ferry located within its limits, if it is not a public ferry. To this extent Rule 35 is not in conflict with Sec­tion 106 of the Panchayat Act. The Panchayat Act and more particu­larly Section 106 thereof does not predicate an absolute dominion of the jurisdiction of the Anchalik Panchayat vis-a-vis a ferry located within its limits, if it is not a public ferry. To this extent Rule 35 is not in conflict with Sec­tion 106 of the Panchayat Act. The existence of Cinatoli Ghat/Ferry and Phuloni Ghat/Ferry and the settlement thereof by the Inland Wa­ter Transport, Assam, and the Anchalik Panchayat in succession over the years prior to the impugned notification dated 1.9.2009 does not detract from this determination. 29. That the distance between the two ghats/ferries is less than 3.2 k.m.s. is unassailably established by the certificate dated 11.6.2010 and the report dated 22.9.2010 of the Circle Officer, Majuli Rev­enue Circle, Majuli. In the teeth of these two reports based on the joint survey at the spot to identify the situation of these two ghats/ferries, the bar contained in Rule 35 vis-a-vis the Phuloni Ghat/Ferry Service stands at­tracted. In view of the above factual disclo­sure and the legislative layout portraying the alignment of section 4 of the Act and Rule 35 of the Rules, the Phuloni Ghat/Ferry Service being not a public ferry, the Anchalik Panchayat is not empowered in law to settle it under the Panchayat Act. Its dominion vis­a-vis a public ferry as recognised by the said provision of the Panchayat Act is unavailable vis-a-vis a ferry which is not so. 30. The challenge to the NIT dated 7.5.2010 issued by the Anchalik Panchayat initiating a process for settlement of the Phuloni ghat therefore has to be sustained. In view of the determination that the essentiality of prior approval of the competent authority under section 13 of the Act is not an impera­tive for valid exercise of power by the Pro­vincial Government under section 4 thereof the assailment of the notification dated 1.9.2009 has to fill. As a consequence, WP(C) 3172/2010 is allowed. The NIT dated 7.5.2010 issued by the Anchalik Panchayat for settlement of Phuloni Ghat is set aside. WP(C) 5770/2010 is dismissed. The interim orders stand vacated. In view of the above, Misc. Case 2106/2010 and Misc. Case 3505/2010 are accordingly closed. In the facts and circumstances attendant on the present adjudication, the parties are left to bear their own costs.