Order Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsels for the State and for respondent No.6. 2. The petitioner seeks setting aside of the order dated 9.4.2013 passed in Record No.01 of 2013-14 by the Additional Collector, Supaul, by which he has settled the Gopalpur Sire Ghat in favour of private respondent No.6 and for a further direction to the respondents to settle the aforesaid Ghat in favour of the petitioner. 3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the petitioner-society claims to have been settled the Gopalur Sire Ghat, which is a Sairat Ferry, for the past years except the year 2012-13. 4. It is stated that the petitioner had filed a writ petition being C.W.J.C. No.13915 of 2012 before this Court with regard to the settlement made in the year 2012-13, but the same was disposed of on 9.8.2012 with liberty to the petitioner to pursue his remedy before the appropriate authority/forum. The petitioner, thereafter, submitted his application for settlement of the Ghat in question in favour of the Samiti on 17.2.2013 before the District Magistrate for the financial year 2013-14. A public notice was issued stating that in terms of the order dated 6.3.2013 of the Collector, Supaul, the Gopalpur Sire Ghat is settled with Sikandar Mukhia, Chairman, Supaul Naw Yatayat Swawlambi Sahog Samiti on the previous year settlement amount and, therefore, the said Sairat shall be kept separate from the other Sairat in the settlement to be made on 7.3.2013. 5. It is stated that pursuant to the notice dated 6.3.2013, the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs.62,055/- as security for settlement of the Ghat in question. It is further stated that the petitioner-society was not a defaulter society and the said fact has not been controverted in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State or even the private respondent. However, subsequently without cancelling the settlement made in favour of the petitioner and giving, at any stage, an opportunity of being heard in the matter, a fresh notice was issued by the Collector, Supaul, in which Gopalpur Sire Ghat was also directed to be settled by the bidding process on 9.4.2013. 6. Admittedly, the petitioner did not participate in the said bidding process but had filed a representation before the respondent against holding the said bidding. However, the respondents proceeded with the bidding and the respondent No.6 being the highest bidder at Rs. 6. Admittedly, the petitioner did not participate in the said bidding process but had filed a representation before the respondent against holding the said bidding. However, the respondents proceeded with the bidding and the respondent No.6 being the highest bidder at Rs. 1,00,000/-, the settlement was made in his favour. It is the stand of the petitioner that the petitioner is willing to take the settlement of the Ghat in question even at the said highest bid. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the settlement having once been made with the petitioner-society, it was not open to the respondents to include the said Sairat in the fresh settlement process by open bidding without first cancelling the settlement made in favour of the petitioner and further without providing it an opportunity of being heard before the settlement in favour of the petitioner was cancelled and a fresh settlement was made. It is pointed out that in fact, there is no order of cancellation of settlement in favour of the petitioner, although Parwana was not issued in his favour. 8. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that in the Circular dated 12.9.1978, it has been clearly provided that the Sairat Ferries are to be settled with the Boatmen Co-operative Society on the reserve jama and only if a society is not willing to take the settlement at the reserve jama then the settlement can be made by open bid. It is pointed out that it is further provided in the said Circular that every three years the authority concerned, in order to find out the capacity of Sairat, make an open bidding for the purpose of its settlement and in case the Co-operative Societies are able and prepared to take settlement at the highest bidding then they should be given priority in the settlement. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent authorities could not have made the settlement by open bidding process, rather the settlement ought to have been made at the reserve jama in favour of the petitioner-society and the decision taken thereon earlier on 6.3.2013 of the District Magistrate, Supaul ought not to have been overturned, that too, without issuing any notice and providing any opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner should have been, at least, informed about the proposal of the respondents to make settlement by open bidding and they should have further informed the petitioner so that it could be present on the occasion and take the settlement at the highest bid on that day but no such thing has been done. 10. It is urged that even today the petitioner-society is willing to take the settlement at the highest bid amount considering that the Circular dated 12.9.1978 makes such a provision. 11. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that it is open to the administration to make a settlement by going for open bidding, which is provided in the Circular dated 12.9.1978 in order to get the benefit of the said settlement at the highest bid but in order to get the benefit of settlement at the highest bid, the petitioner-society ought to have participated in the bidding process. The petitioner having failed to participate in the bidding process cannot take any benefit of the said Circular and get the settlement made in his favour at the highest bid. 12. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the respondents that the advertisement dated 25.3.2013 has not been challenged by the petitioner at any point of time. 13. Upon hearing learned counsels for the parties and further considering the Circular dated 12.9.1978, it is evident that the respondents are obliged to make the settlement with the Boatmen Co-operative Society at the reserve jama that has been fixed, with the society which is willing and able to take the settlement and is not a defaulter society. 14. Further, under the said Circular, every three years the officials are permitted to go for an open bidding for the purpose of finding out the capacity of the Sairat but it has also been provided that it would be open to the Co-operative Societies if they are able and prepared to take the settlement at the highest bid amount then they shall be given priority in making the settlement. Nowhere in the said Circular it is provided that in order to get the benefit of the settlement at the highest bid amount, the Cooperative Society in question will have to actually participate in the open bid process. 15. Nowhere in the said Circular it is provided that in order to get the benefit of the settlement at the highest bid amount, the Cooperative Society in question will have to actually participate in the open bid process. 15. So far as the notice dated 25.3.2013 is concerned, it is nowhere stated therein that the open bidding process at least for Gopalpur Sire Ghat was only for the purpose of finding out the capacity of the Sairat and the settlement would be made with the willing Co-operative Society at the highest bidding amount. The said notice does not also refer to the fact that earlier the said Ghat had been settled with the petitioner society nor it mentions that there was any order cancelling the said settlement. 16. In the aforesaid circumstances, it is evident that the authorities having decided to make the settlement with the petitioner-society ought not to have turned around and decided to go for settlement by open bidding process without cancelling the settlement made in favour of the petitioner society after giving a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner of being heard in the matter. If the respondent authorities had decided to proceed with the open bidding process with respect to the Ghat in question in order to find out the capacity of the sairat, then they ought to have, at least, informed the petitioner that it was entitled to the settlement of the Ghat in question at the highest bid amount but that also they have failed to do. 17. In the aforesaid circumstances, the settlement of Gopalpur Sire Ghat made in favour of the respondent No.6, pursuant to the notice dated 25.3.2013 and the bidding process held on 9.4.2013 is contrary to the Government Circular in that regard and the same is, accordingly, quashed. The petitioner would be entitled to have the said settlement at the same highest bid amount by paying the proportionate settlement amount for the remaining period. As a matter of fact, the proportionate amount would be more than covered by the amount of Rs. 62,055/- already deposited by the petitioner with the respondent authorities and the respondents should proceed further in the matter by making the settlement in favour of the petitioner and refunding the balance amount after deducting the proportionate settlement amount for the remaining period of the financial year. 62,055/- already deposited by the petitioner with the respondent authorities and the respondents should proceed further in the matter by making the settlement in favour of the petitioner and refunding the balance amount after deducting the proportionate settlement amount for the remaining period of the financial year. The respondents are further directed to refund the proportionate amount to the respondent No.6 after cancelling his settlement for the remaining period of the settlement. 18. The writ application is, accordingly, allowed with the aforesaid observations and directions.