This story is from June 21, 2019

Patna HC summons chief secretary over ferry row

The Patna high court on Thursday summoned the state chief secretary in a case pertaining to dispute over control of ferries in the state, which arose due to continuance of a 135-year-old British era Act.
Patna HC summons chief secretary over ferry row
Patna high court
PATNA: The Patna high court on Thursday summoned the state chief secretary in a case pertaining to dispute over control of ferries in the state, which arose due to continuance of a 135-year-old British era Act.
Certain provisions of The Bengal Ferries Act, 1885, which is still effective in the state, are in stark contrast to Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, which empowers village panchayats to manage ferries.
According to the British era Act, ‘ferry’ includes a bridge of boats, pontoons or rafts, a swing-bridge, a flying bridge, a temporary bridge and a landing bridge.
A special five-judge bench of the high court asked the chief secretary to appear before it on Monday after none from the state government turned up to assist the court on the issue during Thursday’s hearing.
Like the Act, the writ petition in the case is also very old as it was filed by Rupauli Thana Naw Yatayat Sahyog Samiti way back in September 1988 over settlement of a wooden bridge known as Dobha ghat in Rupauli, Purnia.
The bench of Chief Justice Amreshwar Pratap Sahi and Justices Chakradhari Sharan Singh, Ashutosh Kumar, Sudhir Singh and Rajeev Ranjan Prasad was hearing the matter for fourth time on Thursday. Either advocate general Lalit Kishore or additional advocate general (AAG) Khurshid Alam were to appear before it. However, none of them turned up even though the court waited for them for more than half-an-hour.
Though AAG Anjani Kumar offered to assist the court on the issue, it did not work as the court had taken exception to the absence of advocate general and AAG Alam.
During earlier hearings by the special bench, the chief secretary was asked to file a counter affidavit on the issue. On March 14, the court was not satisfied with the affidavit filed by the chief secretary and asked him to file an appropriate affidavit again.
End of Article
FOLLOW US ON SOCIAL MEDIA