The State Government must define the limits of the public ferries before leasing them out or settling them with any person or body, and the District Magistrate must exercise his powers under the Act in accordance with the provisions of the Act and not on any extraneous consideration.

B. P. Singh, J.-The petitioner herein is aggrieved by the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Sahebganj, settling 35 public ferries with the respondent no. 4 Co-operative Society for the year 1991-92. He has challenged the auction on various grounds, including the ground that the Deputy Commissioner acted on the dictate of the Chief Minister, and therefore the exercise of statutory power was on extraneous consideration. He bas challenged this action also on the ground that it is mandatory for the State Government to define the limits of the public ferries under section 6 (d) of the Bengal Ferries Act 1885. Unless the State Government defines the limits of the public ferries, no settlement can be made having regard to the scheme of the Act. He further made a grievance that despite several orders of this Court, as also the order of the Commissioner of the Division, no effort has been made to define the limits of the public ferries which adversely affects the interest of the petitioner. It is his case that apart from the requirement of the Act, in the absence of such definition, persons like the petitioner may be exposed to prosecution under section 16 of the Act which prohibits any person from maintaining a ferry to or from any point within a distance of two miles from the limits of a public ferry.

2. Counsel for the petitioner fairly submitted that so far as the instant dispute is concerned, the petitioner has lost interest primarily on account of the fact that the period for which the settlement was made was to run out on 31st of March 1992. He however submits that since the same dispute arises every year when the settlements are made, this Court should issue clear directions to the authorities to act in accordance with the provisions of the Act so as to obviate perpetual litigation.

3. I shall firstly consider the scheme of the Act. Section 6 of the Act vests in the State Govt. power to declare, establish, define, and discontinue Public ferries. Such declaration establishment, definition, or discontinuance has to be made by notifications which may be issued from time to time. Section 6 (d) provides that the State Govt. should define the limits of any public ferry. The definition of a public ferry is essential because the ferry tolls may be leased out by auction from time to time; or may be settled with any agency of the Government of India or the State Government, with a registered Co-operative Society. Obviously therefore there must be certainty about the limits of the public ferry to be settled with the lessee. In the absence of such definition, disputes are bound to arise not only between the lessee and the Govt., but also between the different lessees inter-se. Section 16 provides that no person shall maintain a ferry to or from any point within a distance of two miles from the limits of a public ferry without the sanction of the Magistrate of the District. A breach of the provision of section 16 entails a penalty under section 28 of the Act. It is therefore, all the more important that before a person can be punished for committing a breach of section 16 of the Act, he must be informed about the limits of the public ferry so that he may not trespass within the limits of a public ferry.

4. Section 7 of the Act vests in the Magistrate of the District the control of all public ferries. Section 8 vests in the Magistrate of the District the power of superintendence of every public ferry or in any such other officer as to State Govt. may from time to time, either by name or by official designation appointed.

Section 9 of the Act provides that the tolls of public ferries may, from time to time be leased by public auction for such time as the Magistrate of the District in which such ferry is situated may, with the approval of the Commissioner direct. It further vests in the Magistrate or the officer who may conduct such auction, the authority to refuse to accept the offer of the highest bidder or to accept any other bid or to