1. The dispute in the present appeal by special leave centres around the settlement of ferry rights in respect of a ferry known as "Telpa-Ekauna". The High Court has recorded a clear finding that this ferry has always been treated as a "public ferry" as defined by the provisions of the Bengal Ferries Act, 1885. The High Court has placed reliance in this connection on a reference made to Shahabad Gazetteer at page 396 wherein ferry Telpa-Ekauna is expressly mentioned as a "public ferry". A ferry can be declared as a public ferry under Section 6 of the. Since the High Court has recorded a clear finding that this was a public ferry, the auction in respect of this ferry could have been made only under the provisions of the Bengal Ferries Act. Section 9 of the said Act provides that the lease by an auction in respect of a public ferry can be made only by the Magistrate of the District with the approval of the Commissioner. In the present case the Magistrate of the District proposed that the ferry rights be granted for three years in favour of the appellant, and sought the approval of the Commissioner as envisioned by Section 9 of the. The Commissioner, whose approval was sought, directed that the lease should be for a term of one year and not for a term of three years.

2. The Commissioner approved the lease only for a one year term. However, the Commissioner instead of directing the Magistrate to lease it for one year referred the matter to the State Government. It appears that the State Government directed that the lease should be for a term of three years as proposed by the Magistrate of the concerned District. Accordingly, the lease of the ferry rights was granted in favour of the appellant for a term of three years instead of for a term of one year in disregard of the fact that the Commissioner as an approving authority had approved the grant of lease for a term of one year only. Under the, it was incumbent on the Commissioner to take his own decision in the matter of approval and he ought not to have made a reference to the State Government. It was his decision which was final and conclusive under the and the lease could have been granted only in accordance with the approval accorded by the Commissioner in exercise of this power under Section 9.

3. In these premises respondent 4 herein instituted a writ petition in the High Court and challenged the grant of ferry rights in favour of the appellants herein for a term of three years instead of for a term of one year. The High Court by the judgment under appeal upheld his contention that the power of approval vested in the Commissioner and that the State Government could not have issued directions to the contrary. In this view of the matter the High Court allowed the writ petition preferred by the present respondent 4 and quashed the order for the grant of lease rights in respect of the aforesaid ferry for the period beyond the one year. The appellant has approached this Court by way of the present appeal and has contended that the High Court was in error in taking the view that the grant of lease for ferry rights was governed by the provisions of the Bengal Ferries Act. It was not a public ferry (such as the submission) within the meaning of the relevant provisions of the Bengal Ferries Act and that accordingly the State Government had the power to issue appropriate directions.

4. We are unable to uphold the plea advanced by the appellant. In view of the clear and firm finding recorded by the High Court on the reliable basis of the reference made in the Gazetteer, it cannot be successfully contended that the ferry in question was not a "public ferry". Once this finding is affirmed, the appeal must fail for the lease rights could not have been granted for a term of three years without the approval of the Commissioner and admittedly the Commissioner had granted approval for a term of one year only. The view taken by the High Court it, therefore, perfectly valid and unexceptionable2. Learned counsel for the State contended that a composite lease in respect of ferries declared as public ferries on the one hand and sairat ferries on the other, in respect of which no such public notification declaring it a public ferry had been issued under Section 6, could not have been granted by the competent authority. The High Court has taken the view that such a composite settlement could be lawfully made as there was no legal bar to adopting such a course. Albeit in that event compliance with the Bengal Ferries Act was essential.

5. The High Court has however, not held that it is obligatory to make such a composite settlement. All that has been held is that if such a course, which is optional, is adopted, it is not illegal. It is always open to the State Government to grant ferry rights in respect of a sairat ferry in accordance with existing administrative instructions provided no declaration as a public ferry has been made under Section 6 of thein respect of the ferry in question. Grant of such leases or settlement in respect of ferries other than "public ferries" would not be governed by the provisions of the since by the very nature of things the provisions of the Bengal Ferries Act govern only the grant of ferry rights in respect of "public ferries".

6. In the result, subject to the aforesaid clarification, the appeal fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs.

7. Interim order will stand vacated.