Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010181062026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/4589/2026 HAZRAT ALI SON OF LATE AHAMMOD ALI, VILLAGE UDHALBHETI, P.O. BHURAGAON, P.S. BHURAGAON, DISTRICT MORIGAON, ASSAM, PIN- 782121. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI, PIN 781006. 2:THE DIRECTOR INLAND WATER TRANSPORT ASSAM ULUBARI GUWAHATI PIN -781007. 3:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER INLAND WATER TRANSPORT DIVISION ULUBARI GUWAHATI ASSAM PIN 781007 For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. M. K. Hussain, Advocate Mr. A. M. Ahmed, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. P. N. Goswami, Sr. Advocate Ms. M. D. Borah, Advocate Page No.# 2/5 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH O R D E R 31.08.2026 Heard. Mr. M. K. Hussain, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner. Mr. P. N. Goswami, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. M. D. Borah, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the Respondent Nos.1 to 3. 2. The grievance of the Petitioner in the present proceedings is that the impugned Office Order dated 14.08.2026 whereby it is the claim of the Petitioner that the amount of kist for the temporary settlement has been increased arbitrarily. In addition to that, it is also the prayer of the Petitioner that the Respondent Authorities should be directed to make the final settlement. 3. It is relevant to take note that pursuant to a Notice Inviting Tender dated 31.12.2025, the Petitioner was found to be the highest bidder for the three ferry services which are as under:- Page No.# 3/5 Sl. No. Name of Ferry Service Name of Operator Bid Amount 6 Baralimari-Gadhowa via Barbari Kacharigaon, Nizsaharia Hajrat Ali Rs. 21,31,620.00 7 Bhuragaon-Balichar via Pavakati, Malahu, Kalichar, Magurmari, Chitalmari and Karaikhowa Hajrat Ali Rs.26,31,650.00 9 Gerimari-Kachasila via Serang Hajrat Ali Rs.11,65,550.00 4. Taking into account that for the granting of the final settlement, further time would be required and the period of the earlier settlement of the ferry services ended on 30.06.2026, vide an order dated 04.07.2026, the Petitioner along with various other highest bidders were permitted to temporarily run the ferry services. In the case of the Petitioner, he has allowed to run the aforementioned three ferry services temporarily. 5. At this stage, this Court finds it very pertinent to take note of that taking into account the Petitioner’s annual bids in respect to the three ferry services, the amount payable by the Petitioner every day come in respect to the three ferry services, namely, Baralimari-Gadhowa via Barbari Kacharigaon, Nizsaharia; Bhuragaon-Balichar via Pavakati, Malahu, Kalichar, Magurmari, Page No.# 4/5 Chitalmari and Karaikhowa and Gerimari-Kachasila via Serang comes to Rs.5,840/-; Rs.7210/- and Rs.3193/- respectively per day. 6. In the backdrop of the above, let this Court now take note of the impugned order dated 14.08.2026, whereby in respect to the three ferry services for a period from 16.08.2026 to 31.08.2026, the Petitioner has been directed to pay Rs.51,100/-; Rs.93,450/- and Rs.1,15,360/-. 7. It is the case of the Petitioner that the said amount is higher than the previous directions so passed for deposit on account of the temporary settlement. 8. This Court having perused the materials on record and having also taken note that the Petitioner's bid per year submitted in respect to the three ferry services as well as the per day amount to be paid is of the opinion that the Office Order dated 14.08.2026 do not call for any interference in as much as the same has been duly calculated on the basis of the Petitioner's bid in respect to the three ferry services applying it every day. 9. The next question which arises in the instant proceedings is as to whether any directions are required upon the Respondents to issue the final settlement to the Petitioner in respect to the Page No.# 5/5 three ferry services. 10. This Court has taken note of the instructions so placed by Mr. P. N. Goswami, the learned Senior Counsel which was issued by the Director, Inland Water Transport, Assam. The same is kept on record and marked with the letter ”X”. From a perusal of the said instructions, it is seen that the proposal for settlement of the various ferry services except the Chutiagaon-Dimburchar ferry service has been already forwarded to the Transport Department for final settlement. 11. Mr. P. N. Goswami, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents further submitted on instructions that steps are being taken for the purpose of issuing the final settlement. Under such circumstances, this Court does not find any specific reason for issuance of a writ directing the respondents to issue order for final settlement. 12. Accordingly, the writ petition stands closed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant