Page No.# 1/10 GAHC010023322025 2025:GAU-AS:5267 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/644/2025 MATIYAR RAHMAN S/O- LATE HAJI MESHER, R/O- VILLAGE- CHAYSIMANA, P.O- KADAMTALA, P.S- ALOPATI, DIST-BARPETA, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM, TRANSPORT DEPT, GUWAHATI-06, ASSAM 2:THE JOINT SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM TRANSPORT DEPT GUWAHATI-06 ASSAM 3:THE DEPUTY SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM TRANSPORT DEPT GUWAHATI-06 ASSAM 4:THE DIRECTOR INLAND WATER TRANSPORT ULUBARI GUWAHATI-07 ASSAM 5:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER INLAND WATER TRANSPORT DIVISION GUWAHATI Page No.# 2/10 ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : SHAJAMAL HOQUE, MR S HOQUE,MR. D DAS SR. ADV,MR. K MOHAMMED Advocate for the Respondent : SC, TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, ASSAM, SC, IWT BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA ORDER Date : 30-04-2025 1. Heard Mr. D. Das, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. S. Hoque, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. M.D. Borah, learned Standing Counsel for the Transport Department. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved with the letter dated 28.01.2025 issued by the respondent no.2, which has directed the respondent no.4 to issue a fresh tender, by cancelling the existing settlement of Sunari-Paglababathan Dudhnath Ferry Service (hereinafter referred to as “Ferry Service”) with the petitioner for the period 2024 – 2026. The petitioner is also aggrieved with the consequential office order dated 29.01.2025 issued by the respondent no.4, cancelling the order dated 01.09.2024, which settled the Ferry Service with the petitioner. 3. The petitioner’s case in brief is that the petitioner participated in the NIT dated 13.02.2024 for settlement of the Ferry Service. Being the tenderer with the highest bid, the petitioner was selected as the successful tenderer for running the said Ferry Service. A Lease Agreement was thereafter executed between the petitioner and the respondents on 06.09.2024, for running the Page No.# 3/10 Ferry Service up to 31.03.2026. 4. The respondents handed over the possession of the said Ferry Service to the petitioner on 01.10.2024. 5. The petitioner’s counsel submits that while the petitioner was running the Ferry Service, the impugned letter dated 28.01.2025 issued by the respondent no.2 and the office order dated 29.01.2025 was issued by the respondent no.4, cancelling the settlement of the Ferry Service with the petitioner. 6. The petitioner’s counsel submits that no notice was issued to the petitioner prior to cancelling the settlement of the Ferry Service with the petitioner, which is in violation of the principles of natural justice. He also submits that the impugned letter and the office order should be set aside, as a perusal of the same shows that no reason has been provided in the two documents, for cancelling the settlement of the Ferry Service with the petitioner. As such, there is an infirmity in the decision making process of the respondents, for which this Court has the power of judicial review to correct the arbitrary and illegal action. 7. The petitioner’s counsel submits that it was only during the pendency of this case, that the petitioner has now come to learn that the settlement of the Ferry Service had been cancelled by the respondents, due to a complaint lodged by a 3rd party, to the effect that the petitioner has sublet the Ferry Service to two persons namely, Johirul Islam and Sanowar Hussain in lieu of money, vide an Agreement dated 01.10.2024. Page No.# 4/10 8. The petitioner’s counsel submits that the petitioner has not sublet the said Ferry Service to anyone, but he has only taken the help/assistance of Johirul Islam and Sanowar Hussain to maintain the smooth functioning of the said Ferry Service. Further, the aforesaid two persons have been engaged as labourers/temporary employees of the petitioner, to help him run the Ferry Service. He thus submits that as there is a violation of principles of natural justice and as the decision making process of the respondents is arbitrary, the impugned letter and the office order should be set aside. In support of his submissions, the learned Senior Counsel has relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of Vice Chairman and Managing Director, City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Limited and Another vs. Shishir Realty Private Limited and Others, reported in (2022) 16 SCC 527 and in the case of Sterling Computers Limited vs. M/s M & N Publications Limited and Others, reported in (1993) 1 SCC 445. 9. Ms. M.D. Borah, learned Standing Counsel, Transport Department submits that in the Lease signed by the petitioner and the respondents for running the Ferry Service, it has been specifically provided in Clause 15 that the Lessee shall not sublet the Ferry Service. She also submits that Rule 7 of the Control and Management of Ferries Rules, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the “Rules”), provides that the Lessee shall not sublet, encumber or transfer in any other way the ferry leased to him. She submits that despite the specific Clause in the Lease Deed executed between the parties and the Rules, the petitioner has Page No.# 5/10 sublet the Ferry Service to Johirul Islam and Sanowar Hussain, without the knowledge of the respondents. She submits that the running of a Ferry Service in the rivers across Assam requires very high safety standards, as there has been accidents due to strong currents which have led to boats capsizing, resulting in the death of people. In fact, the Division Bench of this Court has also taken up the issue in PIL (Suo Moto) 8/2018, which has been disposed of on 12.09.2022, by giving several directions to the State Government, to take further steps to improve the safety of the passengers on boats and riverine vessels plying on the rivers in Assam. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that when the State Government has to ensure a high standard of safety is provided to the passengers, by ensuring that only competent persons are selected for settlement of a Ferry Service, the petitioner could not have sublet the Ferry Service persons who had not taken part in the tender process and without the knowledge of the respondents. 10. The learned counsel for the respondents also submits that an inquiry had been conducted by the Executive Engineer, Inland Water Transport Division, which found that the Ferry Service was not being run directly by the petitioner, but was being operated by Johirul Islam and Sanowar Hussain. Further, the State respondents having been made aware of the agreement executed by the petitioner, Johirul Islam and Sanowar Hussain, for running the Ferry Service, the respondents did not furnish any Show-Cause Notice to the petitioner, as the same would have led to time being wasted, during which lives could be lost, as the Ferry Service was being operated by unauthorized persons. Further, there would have been a huge public outcry, if deaths had occurred in the Ferry Service being run by persons, other than the selected settlement holder. It was Page No.# 6/10 only due to the Government intention to safeguard the lives of the Ferry Service passengers that the State respondents did not want to waste time by sending notice, prior to cancelling the settlement of the Ferry Service. Thus, the respondents immediately cancelled the settlement of the Ferry Service and have started running the Ferry Service themselves. The respondents’ counsel submits that as the petitioner is unable to operate the Ferry Service any longer, the respondents will operate the Ferry Service, till a fresh selection/settlement is made, pursuant to an NIT to be issued by the State respondents. 11. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties. 12. The impugned letter dated 28.01.2025 addressed to the Director, Inland Water Transport Department (respondent no. 4) by the respondent no.2 and the impugned office order dated 29.01.2025 issued by the respondent no.4 are reproduced herein below, as follows : Letter dated 28.01.2025. “With reference to the subject cited above, I am directed to request you to go for fresh tendering at the earliest by cancelling the existing settlement of Sunari-Paglababathan Dudhnath Ferry Service for the period of 2024-26” Office order dated 29.01.2025 “The order issued vide eCF No. 439615/86, dated 01-09-2024, pursuant to Government order ECF No. 523745 dated 30-08-2024, concerning the settlement of Sunari-Paglababathan Dudhnath Ferry Service under Inland Water Transport Division, Guwahati, stands cancelled as per Government in Transport Page No.# 7/10 Department's letter ECF No. 292450/128, dated 28-01-2025.” 13. The authorization letter dated 01.10.2024 executed by the petitioner allowing Johirul Islam and Sanowar Hussain to run the Ferry Service is reproduced hereinbelow, as follows : “I, Mr. Motior Rahman, S/o Lt. Meser Haji, by religion- Islam, by profession- Business, a resident of village-Chaysimana, P.O-Kadamtola, Chunari Paglababa P.S.-Alopati, Dist.-Barpeta, Assam, the lessee of Chunari Paglababa Than Dudhnath Ferry Service, vide Order No-EWT/FS/SPD/2024-26 issued by the Executive Engineer, Inland Water Transport Division, Ulubari, Guwahati-7, but I am being the resident of Barpeta district facing communication troubles to take care of the ferry Service ghat, as because of which, I do hereby authorize (1) Mr. Johirul Islam, S/O-Abdul Jobbar, by religion Islam, by profession- Business, a resident of village- Latibari, P.O- Rowkhowa, P.S. Chunari, Dist.-Goalpara, Assam, (2) Mr. Sanowar Hussain, S.O- Lt. Rahman Ali, by religion- Islam, by profession- Business, a resident of village Bamuner Alga, P.O-Rowkhowa, P.S.- Chunari, Dist.- Goalpara, Assam, to take care and run the ferryy Service smoothly i.e. Chunari Paglababa Than Dudhnath Ferry Service during my lessee period with effect from 02.10.2024 and do hereby execute This Authorization Letter on this 1 day of October 2024 at Goalpara in presence of the following witnesses.” 14. Though the reason for cancelling the settlement of the Ferry Service with the petitioner appears to be due to the authorization letter dated 01.10.2024, which has apparently allowed 3rd parties, i.e. Johirul Islam and Sanowar Hussain Page No.# 8/10 to run the Ferry Service, the impugned letter and the office order have not given any reason for cancelling the settlement of the Ferry Service. The above being said, no prior notice has been issued to the petitioner whatsoever, prior to the issuance of the impugned letter and the office order. In fact, the petitioner has also not being given a copy of the authorization letter dated 01.10.2024, to enable him to give his side of the story with regard to the above. 15. In the case of Shishir Realty Private Limited (Supra), the Supreme Court held that natural justice is the sworn enemy of an intolerant authority. Any attempt by an authority to circumvent the requirement of providing effective hearing before reaching a conclusion, cannot pass the muster of providing effective natural justice to affected parties, before a decision is taken. 16. In the case of Sterling Computers Ltd. (Supra), the Supreme Court held that the purpose of judicial review is to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment and examine whether the 'decision making process" was reasonable, rational, not arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. 17. In the present case, no notice or reason had been given to the petitioner with regard to the impugned letter and order, before cancelling the existing settlement of the ferry service with the petitioner. Besides the above, the petitioner has also not been made aware of the fact that the authorization letter dated 01.10.2024 was the basis for cancelling the settlement of the ferry service with the petitioner. Page No.# 9/10 18. The non issuance of a notice and non communication of the reason/s for cancelling the ferry service is violative of the principles of natural justice and as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Shishir Realty Private Limited (Supra), the same has resulted in circumventing the requirement of providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, prior to the making of a conclusion/decision by the respondents. 19. In view of the above reasons, this Court is of the view that the letter dated 28.01.2025 and the office order dated 29.01.2025 are not sustainable. The same are accordingly set aside. The above being said, the corollary of setting aside the above letter and office order would, in normal circumstances, lead to reverting to the state of affairs that existed prior to the issuance of the impugned letter and office order. However, as the running of a ferry service involves the safety of passengers, this Court is of the view that the present arrangement being undertaken by the State respondents, in running the ferry service should be allowed to be carried on for a limited time period, i.e. till a decision is taken with regard to whether the settlement of the ferry service with the petitioner should be allowed to continue or be cancelled, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 20. In view of the above reasons, the State respondents are directed to issue a show-cause-notice to the petitioner, with regard to the authorization letter dated 01.10.2024 and/or for any other reason, which in their view should entail cancellation of the ferry service. The same should be communicated to the petitioner, within a period of 1(one) week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Thereafter, the petitioner should make a reply to the same, within a Page No.# 10/10 further period of 1(one) week. The State respondents should take a decision with regard to the show-cause notice and reply within a further period of 1(one) week from the date of receipt of the reply by the petitioner. The respondents shall be allowed to continue running the ferry service for a period of 3(three) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, till a decision is taken by them within the said 3 (three) weeks. If the direction with regard to communication of the show-cause notice is not done by the respondents and the entire process for taking a decision is not completed within the stipulated time period, the running of the ferry service should be handed over to the petitioner, after the expiry of the stipulated time period of 3 (three) weeks, w.e.f. the date of receipt of this copy. 21. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of, with the above observations and directions. JUDGE Comparing Assistant