SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1953 Supreme(Pat) 94

PATNA HIGH COURT
V.Ramaswami and B.P.Jamuar JJ.
Rambharosa Singh
Versus
Government Of The State Of Bihar
Miscellaneous Judicial Case No. 92 of 1953 ;
Decided On : MAY 14, 1953

The District Magistrate has the sole control of public ferries, subject to the direction of the Commissioner, and the State Government has no locus standi to advise the District Magistrate in this matter.

Headnote:

FERRY LEASE - BENGAL FERRIES ACT, 1885 - PUBLIC AUCTION - EXTENSION OF LEASE - LEGAL RIGHT OF INTENDING BIDDER - WRIT OF MANDAMUS - [SECTIONS 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 15]

Fact of the Case:

The Patna-Ganges Ferry, a public ferry under the Bengal Ferries Act, 1885, was leased to the opposite party for two years. The District Magistrate advertised a public auction for leasing the tolls of the ferry for three years from 1-4-1953. The petitioner, an intending bidder, offered a higher annual rental than the previous lessee. However, the District Magistrate withdrew the public auction and extended the lease of the opposite party for two more years under the direction of the State Government.

Finding of the Court:

The withdrawal of the public auction and the extension of the lease without public auction were illegal and void. The District Magistrate had the sole control of the ferry, subject to the direction of the Commissioner, and the State Government had no locus standi to advise the District Magistrate in this matter. The petitioner had a sufficient legal interest to maintain the application for a writ of mandamus, as he was an intending bidder who had come to Patna to bid at the proposed auction and had offered a higher annual rental.

Issues: 1. Whether the District Magistrate could withdraw the public auction and extend the lease without public auction under the direction of the State Government? 2. Whether the petitioner had a sufficient legal interest to maintain the application for a writ of mandamus?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Bengal Ferries Act, 1885, vested the control of public ferries in the District Magistrate, subject to the direction of the Commissioner. The State Government had no locus standi to advise the District Magistrate in this matter. 2. The petitioner had a sufficient legal interest to maintain the application for a writ of mandamus, as he was an intending bidder who had come to Patna to bid at the proposed auction and had offered a higher annual rental.

Final Decision: The application for a writ of mandamus was allowed. The District Magistrate was directed to issue a fresh notification for holding a public auction and to lease out the tolls of the Patna-Ganges Ferry according to law.

Judgment

Jamuar, J.

1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of an appropriate writ directing the District Magistrate of Patna to lease the tolls of a ferry known as the Patna-Ganges Ferry by public auction, irrespective of the direction of the State Government to the contrary.

2. The Patna-Ganges Ferry has been declared to be a public ferry under the Bengal Ferries Act, 1885 (Bengal Act, 1 of 1885). The tolls of the ferry had been leased to opposite party No. 5 by public auction for a term of two years, namely from 1-4-1951, to 31-3-1953. According to the rules framed in pursuance of the provisions of Sec.15, Bengal Perries Act, the District Magistrate of Patna advertised to the public in the issue of the Bihar Gazette dated 3-9-1952, fixing 22-12-1952, as the date for holding a public auction for the lease of the tolls of the ferry for a period of three years with effect from 1-4-1953. The petitioner intended to bid at this public auction, and he came to Patna for the purpose. Then he found that the District Magistrate had revoked his announcement to lease the tolls of the ferry by public auction in supersession of the advertisement referred to above, and had withdrawn the tolls from public auction under a notice dated 19-12-1952, which was to the following effect:

"It is hereby notified for general information that as Government decided to extend the lease of the Patna-Ganges Ferries of the present lessee. Sri Nagendra Narain Singh, for a further period of 2 years with effect from 1-4-1953, settlement of the Patna Ganges Ferries by public auction fixed for 22-12-1952 is withdrawn and consequently there will be no public auction for the settlement of the Ferries in question."

3. The tolls of the ferry had been leased to Sri Nagendra Narain Singh, opposite party No. 5, for a period of 2 years commencing from the 1st April, 1951, at an annual rental of Rs. 51,000/-. On the 22nd December 1952 the petitioner filed an application before the District Magistrate offering an annual rental of Rs. 1,05,000.00 as against the previous annual rental of Rs. 51,000.00 of the opposite party No. 5. The District Magistrate disposed of that application by endorsing upon it that the notification to hold a public auction had already been withdrawn. It is then stated that the petitioner filed application before the Commissioner as also before the Government; but no orders were passed. Hence, on 6-3-1953. he filed the present application under Article 226 of the Constitution.

4. It appears that opposite party No. 5 had made an application before the District Magistrate for an extension of his lease. The District Magistrate had recommended to the Commissioner that the lease might be extended for a period of three years The Commissioner also moved the Government of an extension of lease. On 16-12-1952, the State Government wrote to the Commissioner that they desired that the lease of opposite party No 5 might be extended for a further period of two years with effect from 1-4-1953, and the same letter stated that the District Magistrate of Patna may be advised to withdraw the ferry from auction under Section 9, Bengal Ferries Act. It was in pursuance of this direction that the District Magistrate, by the notice quoted above, withdrew the settlement of the ferry from public auction which was fixed for 22-12-1952.

5. The argument advanced by Mr. P.R. Das in support of this application was that, in the circumstancess of this case, the withdrawal of the settlement of the ferry from public auction by the District Magistrate was wholly illegal and further that the extension of the lease in favour of opposite party No. 5 was consequently also illegal and void. The contention was that, under the Bengal Ferries Act as also under the rules, framed under it, the State Government had no locus stadi to advise the District Magistrate to withdraw the settlement of the ferry from public auction or to extend the lease in favour of




























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top