A public authority's power to lease ferry tolls must be exercised in accordance with the statutory provisions, and a private settlement of the tolls is ultra vires and void.

Ramaswami, J.

1. In this case, petitioner Ramphal Singh has moved this Court for a writ in the nature of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India commanding the respondents Nos. 3 and 4 to lease the tolls of the Barh-Banarsi-Sultanpore Ferry by public auction and to cancel the private settlement made with the respondents Nos. 5 and 0.

2. The Barh-Banarsi Sultanpore Ferry has been declared by the State Government to be a public ferry under Sec. 6 of the Bengal Ferries Act. The ferry was managed by the Patna District Board till the year, 1944, but on the 15th of January, 1945, the Government Bihar notified that the ferry would be managed by the Barn Municipality in the district of Patna. In the year 1949, the Municipality was superseded under Sec.385 of the Bihar and Orissa Municipal Act. The Municipality was, in consequence, placed under the control and management of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Barh who was appointed as the Special Officer of the Municipality. The Special Officer issued a notification that on the 9-1-1953, the tolls of the Barh Benarsi Sulanpore Ferry would be settled by public auction.

3. The date was postponed to the 31st of January, 1953, and again to the 5th of March, 1953, as the bids offered were not adequate. On the 5th of March, 1953, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate held the public auction and the petitioner Ramphal Singh offered the highest bid of Rs. 8,200/-. On that date, the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 2,000.00 as earnest money. The balance was deposited by the petitioner on the 6th of March, 1953 into the Barh Treasury by means of a chalan. On the 13th March 1953, the petitioner executed a registered Kabuliat and filed it in the Municipal office. The complaint of the petitioner is that on the 29th of March, 1953, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate rejected the petitioners bid and ordered that the amount paid by the petitioner should be refunded. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate lurther ordered that the ferry would be retained by the Municipality in Khas possession.

On the 7th of April, 1953 however, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate made a private settlement with the respondent No. 5 Suraj Singh and the respondent No. 6 Ram Prasad Singh for a sum of Rs. 12,000/-. The petitioner asserts, that the private settlement made with the respondents Nos. 5 and 6 is null and void and that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate has violated the statute in making the private settlement. The petitioner has therefore moved this Court for grant of writ of mandamus directing the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to make a settlement by public auction and cancel the private settlement.

4. The first question which arises in this case is whether the Sub-Divisional Magistrate has committed any breach of statute in making private settlement of the Barh-Benarsi Sultanpore Ferry with the respondents Nos. 5 and 6. The question involves the interpretation of several sections of the Bengal Ferries Act.

Section 6 states that "it shall be lawful for the provincial Government from time to time to declare what ferries shall be deemed public ferries, and the respective districts in which, for the purposes of this Act, they shall be deemed to be situate .....".

Section 7 declares that "the control of all public ferries shall be vested in the Magistrate of the district, subject to the direction of the Commissioner".

Section 8 enacts that

"the immediate superintendence of every public ferry shall be vested in the Magistrate of the district in which such ferry is situated or in such other officer as the provincial Government may, from time to time, either by name or by official designation, appoint".

Section 8 further requires that "such Magistrate or officer shall except when the tolls at such ferry are leased, make all necessary arrangements for the supply of boats for such ferry and for the collection of the authorized tolls leviable thereat."

Section 8 therefore imposes a duty on the Magistrate to make arrangements for the sup