NAVIN SINHA, J.:–I. A. 1870 of 2013 has been filed to condone delay of 154 days in filing the Appeal. We have heard Learned Counsel for the parties and considered the explanation for delay. Official procedures requiring administrative approvals at different levels in an impersonal bureaucratic set up, to file Appeal do take time, opinions have to be obtained, especially when a judgement has implications at the State level concerning issues of policy, far beyond the immediate parties. The present appeal raises important questions of law having implications all over the State. We consider it proper to condone the delay. The I.A. Application is allowed.

2. The present appeal arises from order dated 30.4.2012 allowing CWJC No. 14449 of 2010. The Learned Single Judge held that the notification dated 1.7.2010 of the State government issued under Section 158 (1) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006, [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Panchayat act’] directing that no settlement of public ferry be made by the Zila Parishad from 2010-2011 and releasing all existing settlements was invalid and without jurisdiction. The State government could not interfere with statutory settlements made by the Zila Parishad under the Bengal Ferries Act,1885 [hereinafter called ‘the Ferries act’], more so in absence of any request from the Zila Parishad, a pre-condition for exercise of powers under the Section 158 (1). The Zila Parishad in a ferry settled by it under Section 35 of the Ferries act was the exclusive repository of the power like the District Magistrate with regard to settlements made by him. If the State government could not interfere with the statutory settlements made by the District Magistrate, the same reasoning would apply to statutory settlements made by the Zila Parishad. The Learned Single Judge relied upon Section 6 of the Ferries act as interpreted in AIR 1956 SC 640 [State of Bihar & ors Vs. Ram Bharosa Singh) and AIR 1987 Patna 138 [Ranjit Singh Vs. State of Bihar& ors]. Section 73 [21] [h] of the Panchayat act was held to have no application as it is related to maintenance and control of any tank, ghat, well channel or drain, belonging to a private owner on agreed terms. The respondent was held entitled to refund of the settlement amount for the period 5.7.2010 to 14.5.2011 during which he was unable to collect toll by an erroneous premature cancellation. The respondent was further held entitled to compensation for loss and damages to be determined by the District Magistrate on a representation to be filed.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the interpretation of Section 6 and 35 of the Ferries act by the Learned Single Judge was erroneous. Section 73 [14] of the Panchayat act could not be brought to the attention of the Court. The State government having taken a policy decision to do away with auction settlement of ferries by the District Board had framed Model Rules 2011 published in the Gazette on 15.6.2012 for registration and licensing of boats including safety features along with other requirements. It was further contended that the Learned Single Judge did not appreciate the difference in power of the District Magistrate to make settlements under supervision of the Commissioner and the power of the District Board for settlement of ferries where a Board existed in a District, under supervisory control of the State government. The provisions of Section 6 of the Ferries act had to be read with the notifications issued thereunder in respect of the separate powers of the District Magistrate and of the District Board read along with Section 35. Compensation of Rs.6,71,003.63p. had been directed to be paid simultaneous to cancellation of settlement even before the order by the Court. Payment had been received by the respondent on 10.7.2013. The claim for compensation and damages had been considered by the District Magistrate and rejected on 5.12.2012 by a reasoned order. There is no challenge to it. There