Back
2025 Supreme(Gau) 1437
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.
Matiyar Rahman s/o. Late Haji Mesher – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Assam And 5 Others
WP(C)/2875 of 2025
Decided on : 26-09-2025
For the Appellant :Mr. P. K. Roychoudhury, Advocate
For the Respondent: Ms. M. D. Borah, Standing Counsel
The court affirmed that a lessee's authorization of others to operate a ferry violates the lease agreement, warranting termination and confirming the government's actions as lawful under the rules.
Headnote:(A) Inland Vessels Act, 2021 - Rules 4(1) and 7 of the Control and Management of Ferries Rules, 1968 - The lease agreement for ferry service was terminated due to violations of rules and safety regulations; the lessee authorized others to run the ferry, violating the lease conditions - Requirement for judicial review examined. (Paras 3, 11, 34)
(B) Judicial Review - The exercise of powers under Article 226 does not extend to substituting the judgment of the administrative authorities unless their actions are found to be arbitrary or in violation of established regulations. (Paras 2, 34)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the termination of the ferry service lease due to alleged subletting and non-compliance with safety regulations. A lease agreement was initially settled, but later actions led to its cancellation.
Findings of Court:
The court upheld the termination of the lease, finding adequate basis for the government's action based on non-compliance with statutory rules.
Issues: The key question was whether the termination of the lease agreement warranted judicial intervention.
Ratio Decidendi: Court ruled that the lessee's authorization of others to operate the ferry constituted a breach of lease terms, justifying the termination of the lease.
Result: Writ petition dismissed; termination upheld.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. termination of lease and violations of conduct. (Para 2 , 4 , 10 , 12) |
| 2. rules governing leases of ferry services. (Para 8 , 21 , 22 , 24 , 31) |
| 3. subletting and public safety considerations. (Para 11 , 30) |
| 4. judicial review on the cancellation of the lease. (Para 14 , 20 , 34) |
JUDGMENT :
DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.
1. Heard Mr. P. K. Roychoudhury, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and Ms. M. D. Borah, the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the Transport Department.
2. The Petitioner herein is aggrieved by the communication dated 17.05.2025 issued by the Additional Secretary to the Government of Assam, Transport Department whereby it was opined that the lease agreement should be terminated. The Petitioner is also aggrieved by the Speaking Order dated 19.05.2025 whereby the lease of Sunari Paglababathan Dudhnath Ferry Service made in favour of the Petitioner was terminated with immediate effect and directions were issued to urgently initiate re-tender process for settlement of the Sunari Paglababathan Dudhnath Ferry Service.
3. The issue which arises for consideration is as to whether the present case is a fit case for exercise of the powers of judicial review by this Court.
FACTS OF THE CASE:
4. A perusal of the writ petition reveals that the Executive Engineer Inland Water Transport Division, Guwahati had issued a Notice Inviting Tender on 13.02.2024 for leasing out the Sunari Paglababathan Dudhnath Ferry Service (for short ‘the ferry service in question’) for the remaining period of 2024- 2026 w.e.f. the date of taking over by the lessee up to 31.03.2026. The Petitioner along with various other bidders participated in the said tender process. Vide a communication dated 30.08.2024 issued by the Joint Secretary to the Government of Assam, Transport Department to the Director, Inland Water Transport, Assam, Ulubari the decision of the Governor of Assam was conveyed to the effect that the settlement of the ferry service in question be made with the Petitioner for the remaining period of 2024-26 w.e.f. the date of taking over by the lessee up to 31.03.2026 at an amount of Rs.7,07,786/- only per year basis under the provision of Rule 4(1) of the Control and Management of Ferries Rules, 1968 (for short ‘the Rules of 1968’) subject to certain conditions mentioned therein. It was further mentioned in the said communication that the lease agreement be executed before handing over the charge of the ferry service.
5. At this stage, it is pertinent to mention that during the course of hearing, it was submitted at the Bar that there was a mistake in mentioning the amount in the communication dated 30.08.2024 inasmuch as the amount at which it was fixed per year was Rs.17,07,786/- and not Rs.7,07,786/-.
6. Subsequent thereto, the Director, Inland Water Transport, Assam informed the Executive Engineer vide a communication dated 01.09.2024 about the Government’s decision. It was specifically mentioned in the said communication dated 01.09.2024 that the lease agreement be executed with the lessee before handing over the ferry service in question failing which the charges of the ferry services should not be handed over to the lessee. It was also mentioned that in no case, the ferry sublet is permitted as per the Rules of 1968. A copy of the said communication dated 01.09.2024 was also marked to the Petitioner.
7. The records reveal that although the period of settlement was for the remaining period of 2024-26 i.e. w.e.f. the date of taking over by the lessee up to 31.03.2026 but the agreement was entered into w.e.f. 06.09.2024 to 31.03.2025 and proportionately, for that period, the amount fixed to be paid was Rs.9,68,530/-.
8. Before proceeding further, it is very pertinent at this stage to observe that a perusal of the Agreement entered into by and between the Petitioner and the Respondent Authority appears to be drawn up in terms with Appendix-D to the Rules of 1968 and the requirement of entering into the
