IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

APPELLATE SIDE

BEFORE :-

THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SHAMPA SARKAR

&

THE HON’BLE JUSTICE ARJUN RAY MUKHERJEE

MAT 1466 of 2026

with

CAN 2 of 2026

Dipak Kumar Sarkar

vs.

The Secretary,

Hariharpara Thana Ferry Service

Co-operative Society Ltd. & Ors.

For the Appellant : Mr. Sarwar Jahan, Adv.,

Ms. Iqra Rahaman, Adv.

Ms. Shalini Sen, Adv.

Ms. Sahina Parvin

For the Respondents No.1/

Writ petitioner : Mr. Haradhan Banerjee, Sr. Adv.,

Mr. Suresh Chandra Manna, Adv.

Mr. Suresh Kumar Sahoo, Adv.

For the State : Mr. Souvik Nandy, Sr. Adv.,

Mr. Subhajit Das, Adv.

For the Respondent No. 6 : Mr. Shahan Shah, Adv.,

Judgment reserved on : 11.09.2026

Judgment pronounced on : 30.09.2026

Judgment uploaded on : 30.09.2026

Shampa Sarkar, J.

1. The appeal arises out of an order dated July 31, 2026, passed by learned

Single Judge in WPA 15822 of 2026. By the order impugned, the learned

2

Judge directed impleadment of one Barun Mondal as a respondent and

service of the copy of the amended writ petition upon the added

respondent. In addition to such direction, the learned Judge directed the

state to submit a report on the adjourned date by responding to the

contentions of the writ petitioner. Her Lordship directed that, the e-

auction dated June 25, 2026 shall not be given effect to until August 21,

2026 or until further orders whichever was earlier. The appellant claims

to be the successful bidder in respect of Malopara (Malopara) Ferry Ghat.

He is aggrieved by the interim order passed in respect of the e-auction,

behind his back.

2. Learned advocate for the appellant submitted that the appellant was

intentionally not impleaded in the proceeding. A vested right had been

created in favour of the appellant for grant of lease of the concerned ferry

ghat and the writ petitioner was aware of the result of the e-auction. The

appellant had alread y participated in the e -auction No.

03/HPS/FG/2026-27 held on July 27, 2026. He was declared the highest

bidder in respect of his bid for a period of 3 years and he deposited the

bid money for the first year. The writ petitioner being the unsuccessful

bidder could not have been permitted to challenge the e-auction process.

3. It was further urged that the order of the learned Single Judge was

contrary to the decision of the Division Bench of this court dated July 16,

2025, passed in M.A.T. No. 139 of 2025 (Nowda Thana Ferry Service Co-

operative Society Ltd. Vs. State of West Bengal and Others). The Division

Bench had conclusively held that Rule 281 of the West Bengal Land and

Land Reforms Manual, 1991(hereinafter referred to as the Land Manual),

3

did not have any application in respect of settlement of ferry ghats which

were under the management and control of panchayat bodies. Settlement

of ferry ghats by open e-auction was the only mechanism as per the policy

of the state Government for maximization of revenue. It was also urged

that the provisions of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973 and the West

Bengal Panchayat (Panchayat Samiti Administration Rules, 2008) would

override and supersede the provisions of the Land Manual. The writ

petition should fail for non-joinder of necessary parties Thus, the interim

order could not have been passed by the learned court. It was further

contended that the order did not record any reasons as to why an auction

process which had taken effect should be stayed.

4. Mr. Haradhan Banerjee, learned Senior Advocate for the writ petitioner,

submits that the Land Manual had statutory force. It had been

incorporated into the provisions of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act ,

1955 until rules were framed in respect of settlement and management of

land within the state of West Bengal. It was contended by Mr. Banerjee

that the order of the Division Bench that the Land Manual did not have

any statutory force, was contrary to law. He next contended that the

learned Single Judge had extended the interim order from time to time

and subsequent extensions had not been challenged. Every order of

extension of the interim order was a fresh order and each of such order

would have to be challenged.

5. Mr. Banerjee urged that the writ petition was pending hearing before Her

Lordship. The interim order did not call for any interference in this intra

court appeal. The issue had not been finally decided. Her Lordship had

4

rightly stayed the e-auction process till final decision in the writ petition.

If further rights were created in the meantime and the writ petitioner was

ultimately successful in proving the illegality in the e-auction process, the

situation would become irreversible. According to Mr. Banerjee, the

decision of the Division Bench was also distinguishable on facts. In the

said matter, the writ petitioner as the existing operator, had received

settlement of the ferry ghats pursuant to auctions. Moreover, the writ

petitioner was not the only co-operative society of hereditary Patnis. In the

present case, the writ petitioner was the sole cooperative society within

the gram panchayat and its members were local boatmen from the

backward classes. They were continuing with the ferry service on the

basis of settlements and not lease. The livelihood of the members of the

community depended on the income derived from such service. They were

all hereditary Patnis. The Land Manual was amended and Rule 281(iii)

had been incorporated with a specific legislative intent to support poor

local boatmen, belonging to backward classes. The Land Manual

categorically provided that preference should be given to cooperative

societies comprising of local boatmen who were hereditary Patnis. If there

was only one cooperative society in the locality, settlement was to be given

to such cooperative society at the rent to be determined by the Collector,

on the basis of 10 % of the average of net income of preceding three years.

No tender should be invited in such situations. As the e-auction notice

impugned in the writ petition violated the provisions of the said Rule, the

writ petition was filed and rightly entertained by Her Lordship. It was

contended by Mr. Banerjee that the increased rates in the rent, as per the

5

resolutions of the Panchayat Samiti were being paid regularly. He referred

to some of the rent receipts which were annexed to the writ petition.

6. Mr. Banerjee relied on the following decisions:-

(a) Raj Kumar and Ors. vs Shakti Raj and Ors. reported in (1997) 9

SCC 527;

(b) Shah Babulal Khimji vs Jayaben D. Kania and Anr. reported in

AIR 1981 SC 1786.

7. Considered the rival contentions of the learned Advocates for the

respective parties.

8. The subject matter of challenge before the learned writ court were the e-

auction notices issued by the Executive Officer, Hariharpara Panchayat

Samiti, dated June 25, 2026, in respect settlement of 13 ferry ghats.

Separate notices were issued by the said Samiti, inviting bona fide

individuals, firms, cooperative societies and companies, for grant of lease

for a period of 3 years, with enhanced lease rate at the rate of 5% per

annum. The bidding process was online. The terms and conditions of

participation were clearly stated in the said notice. The eligibility criteria

of the bidders were also mentioned. The appellant, the writ petitioner and

the respondent No. 6 participated in respect of Malopara (Malopara) ferry

ghat. The appellant became the successful bidder and deposited the lease

rent for the first year after receiving the letter of acceptance from the

Executive Officer of the Samiti.

9. The learned Judge passed the interim order staying the e-auction process

initiated by the notices dated June 25, 2026. We are of the view that

probably, Her Lordship was not informed that the writ petitioner had

6

participated in the e-auction. The writ petitioner took a chance and

submitted a bid. Upon being unsuccessful, the writ petition was moved

and an interim order was obtained not only behind the back of the

successful bidder, but also by misrepresentation. The issue actually

raised in the writ petition was that the representation filed by the writ

petitioner for extension of the settlement for another year was kept

pending and notices of e-auction had been illegally issued. Whereas, we

find that the appellant was all along interested to participate in the e-

auction process and had done so. With regard to the contention of Mr.

Banerjee that the interim order has been extended from time to time and

as such, every extension should have been ch allenged in a separate

appeal, we restrict this appeal to the first order under challenge dated

July 31, 2026. The subsequent orders are mere extensions of the first

order, which is as follows:-

“Let the matter appear under the same heading on 17

th

August,

2026.

The e-auction dated 25

th

June, 2026 shall not be acted upon till

21

st

August, 2026 or until further orders, whichever is earlier.”

10. Before the learned Single Judge could grant an interim order, prima facie

case, balance of convenience and inconvenience and irreparable loss and

injury in not granting the interim order prayed for, should have been

discussed.

11. Her Lordship did not discuss whether the writ petitioner had a, prima

facie case, which would require an interim protection. On the other hand,

the e-auction process had been concluded and a letter of acceptance had

been granted to the successful bidder. The balance of convenience was in

7

favour of not granting any injunction on the process after the same had

concluded. Moreover, the right of the writ petitioner to challenge the e-

auction process was not discussed. The Panchayat Samiti was not heard.

12. With regard to the other contention of Mr. Banerjee, as to the

applicability of Rule 281 (iii) of the Land Manual, we refer to Section 52(4)

of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 which has been relied upon

by Mr. Banerjee, in support of his contention that the Division Bench

wrongly held that the Manual did not have any statutory force. The said

provision is quoted below:-

“52. Management of lands:- (1) All lands to which this Act applies

shall be deemed to have been held under the State on such terms and

conditions as may be prescribed.

(2) Any land belonging to the State or land which is at the disposal of

the State Government or held under the State by virtue of the

provisions of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953 (West

Bengal Act i of 1954), or this Act or any other law in force shall,

unless the State Government otherwise directs by any general or

special order, be managed, in such manner as may be prescribed, by

the Collector of the district under whose jurisdiction the lands are

situated [subject to the control of the State Government, particularly

determination of terms and conditions of lease as may be specified in

the lease deed and fixation of annual rent with or without premium.]

(3) If the State Government is of opinion that different sets of rules are

necessary for the management of different classes or descriptions of

lands or lands of different areas, it may make different sets of rules '

under this section.

(4)Until rules made under this s ection come into operation,

management of any land covered by this Act shall continue to be

made in accordance with the existing law or rules or manual or

principles, whichever may apply.]”

13. Section 52 deals with management of lands. According to t he said

Section, until and unless Rules governing operation and management of

lands covered by the provisions of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act,

1955 were promulgated, the Manual would apply . He further relied on

8

Rule 28A of the West Bengal Land Reform Rules, 19 65 which is

reproduced below:-

28A. Management of land and estate belonging to the State

Government in accordance with sub -section (2) of section 52.-—

Without prejudice to the provisions elsewhere contained in these

rules, all lands and all interests therein belonging to the State

Government shall be managed and shall be deemed to have been

managed by the Collector of the district under whose jurisdiction the

lands are situated in accordance with the West Bengal Land and

Land Reforms Manual, 1991, published by the Board of Revenue,

West Bengal, being the rules for the time being in force for the

management of Government lands and estates subject to such

directions, as may, by general or special order, be issued from time

to time by the State Government in this behalf:

Provided that the State Government may entrust' the management of

a land belonging to it in any area to a local body or to an authority

constituted by or under any law for the time being in force on such

terms and conditions as the State Government may specify from time

to time.

14. The said Rule provided that all lands and interests belonging to the state

government would be managed or deem ed to be managed by the collector

of the district under whose jurisdiction the land was situated, and in

accordance with the Land Manual. We are not in agreement with Mr.

Banerjee for the simple reason that , the Land Manual will have

application in respect of management and operation of lands and ferry

ghats covered by the West Bengal Land Reform Act, 1955, which vested in

the State. These ferry ghats are operated and managed by the panchayat

samiti upon being duly vested with such right.

15. The West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973 hereinafter referred to as the said

Act, came into operation with effect from January 17, 1974. Rule 266 of

the Land Manual provides for handing over to the panchayat institutions,

land and interest belonging to or at the disposal of the state government.

9

Management of Ferries, fisheries, tank with water area up to 5 acres and

other interest had been transferred to the panchayati raj institutions as

per Rule 266(2) of the said Land Manual. The provision is quoted below:-

“266. Handing over to Panchayat Institutions.-

(2) The management of ferries, fisheries each with water area up to 5

acres, tanks each with water area up to 5 acres and other interests

have been transferred to Panchayats with the following exceptions:

(i) Rivers;

(ii) Big water areas (above 5 acres);

(iii) Riverine fisheries;

(iv) Part vested water areas;

(v) Ferries declared as public ferries under the Bengal Ferries Act,

1885, as subsequently amended; and

(vi) Where the Panchayat cannot conveniently take over management

of the same.”

16. Rule 266(C) of the Land Manual provides that tanks and other interest

transferred to panchayats would be leased out to the functional

fishermen’s cooperatives, fish production groups or self-help groups or

individuals, by a tendering committee constituted as per guidelines of the

Panchayats and Rural Development Departments, in the manner provided

under Rule 272 to 275.

17. Thus, when the ferry ghats were handed over to the panchayati raj

institutions, such institutions would get exclusive power and authority to

grant lease in respect of ferry ghats. The Land Manual, in our prima facie

view, covers the whole spectrum of activities of the officials and

functionaries at various levels of the Land and Land Reforms Department.

The Manual lays down the principles and procedures to be followed by

such officials and functionaries, in matters relating to land and land

reforms. It embodies the government's policy in matters relating to

10

management, use and settlement of government lands. The Manual does

not have an overriding effect over the Panchayat Act, 1973.

18. Thus, even assuming Mr. Banerjee's contention that the Manual has a

statutory force to be correct, the same would only apply to settlement of

lands and ferries exclusively within the control of the State Government.

The concept of Panchayati Raj and incorporation of the three tier system

of governance was introduced by the 73rd amendment of the constitution,

which was brought in 1992. Part IX of the Constitution deals with

creation of powers and functions of panchayats. Article 243-G(b) of the

Constitution of India empowers the panchayats to implement their

schemes for economic development and to secure social justice. Entry 13

of the 11th Schedule deals with ferry ghats. The fact that 13 ferry ghats

had vested in the Panchayat Samiti is not in dispute. This is available

from the very fact that the settlement in favour of the writ petitioner for

the past years had been made by the Panchayat Samiti itself. Devolution

of powers and responsibilities on Panchayati Raj Institutions was the

main objective of the amendment. Article 243-G is quoted below:-

“243G. Powers, authority and responsibilities of Panchayats

Subject to the provisions of this Constitution the Legislature of a State

may, by law, endow the Panchayats with such powers and authority

and may be necessary to enable them to function as institutions of

self-government and such law may contain provisions for the

devolution of powers and responsibilities upon Panchayats, at the

appropriate level, subject to such conditions as may be specified

therein, with respect to—

(a)the preparation of plans for economic development and social

justice;

(b)the implementation of schemes for economic development and

social justice as may be entrusted to them including those in relation

to the matters listed in the Eleventh Schedule.

11

19. Rule 31 of the West Bengal Panchayat (Panchayat Samiti Administration)

Rules, 2008, empowers the Artha, Sanstha, Unnayan O Parikalpana

Sthayee Samiti of the Panchayat Samiti to deal with, manage and control

ferries assigned by the government. The Rule is quoted below:-

31. Subjects and functions assigned to different Stayee Samitis. -

The Sthayee Samiti specified in the entries in column (1) of the Table

hereunder shall deal with and formulate and execute schemes relating

to the subjects specified in the corresponding entries in column (2) of

the Table.

TABLE

Artha Sanstha Unnayan O

Parikalpana Sthayee Samiti

(1) Finance, (ii) Budget, (iil) Accounts,

(iv) Audit,

(v) Levying of rates, fees, duties and

toll charges, (vi) Mobilisation of

resources, (vii) Administration and

establishment, (viii) Co-ordination and

monetary supervision of activities of

different Sthayee Samitis including

the schemes assigned by different

departments of Governmen t,(ix)

Preparation and implemen tation,

monitoring and evaluation of

Panchayat Samiti plans, (x)

Employment generating programmes,

(xi) Small savings, (xii) Preparation of

resource inventory and data base of

Panchayat Samiti planning, (xiii)

Management of hat, bazaar, ferry

assigned by Government to Panchayat

Samiti, (xiv) Issue of licences on behalf

of the Panchayat Samiti, (xv)

Preparation of socio economic

database in a decentralized manner,

(xvi) Organizing and managing

training of members and functionaries

of Gram Panchayat and Panchayat

Samiti, (xvii) Any other function not

specified for any other Sthayee Samiti,

(xviii) Any other matter as may be

assigned from time to time, (xix)

Implementation of Right to

Information Act.

12

20. Thus, the Constitution of India and the Panchayat Act , 1973 both

empowered Panchayat Samitis to establish, control and manage ferry

ghats, collect tolls and maximize revenue for the best interest of the said

Samiti. The Land Manual cannot have an overriding effect over the above

provisions. E-auction ensures maximization of revenue.

21. It has been specifically contended that the writ petitioner has been

running the ferry ghats for a couple of decades at minimum price, which

has caused huge loss of revenue to a public authority. We also find that

the Department of Panchayats and Rural Development adopted the

procedure of e-auction and e-tender by issuing specific notifications.

Thus, the Panchayat Samiti was within its power to issue the e-auction

notices and settle the ferry ghats by granting lease. It is also well settled

that properties belonging to the government or public authorities, cannot

be leased out, except by holding an auction. The process should be

transparent and encourage fair competition. Every eligible bidder must be

allowed to participate. Every eligible bidder is entitled to get a level playing

field. The writ petitioner cannot keep on extending the settlement year to

year by way of a private arrangement with the Panchayat Samiti. The

Panchayat Samiti was not bound by the provisions of Rule 281(iii) of the

Manual. Rule 281 (iii) is quoted below:-

“281. Public ferries and non-public ferries.-

(iii) Concession to hereditary patnis.- Preference should be given for

settlement of ferries with local Boatmen’s Co-operative Society or

partnership concern formed of local boatmen and hereditary patni. If

there is only one such co-operative society or partnership concern in

the locality, settlement shall be made with such co-operative society

or partnership concern on the basis of economic rent to be

determined by the Collector on the basis of 25% of the average of net

13

income of preceding three years and in such event no tender needs

be invited.”

22. A meaningful reading of Rule 281(iii) of the Manual would indicate that

settlement of ferries were to be made to the sole cooperative society or

partnership concern without calling any tender on the basis of the

economic rent to be determined by the collector. In this case, the records

reveal that the rent payable by the society was determined by the Samiti

itself. All the documents relied upon by the writ petitioner/ society

indicate the same. We find it prudent to refer to the memorandum No.

484 dated June 22, 1987, issued by the Government of West Bengal Land

and Land Reforms Department, which states as follows:-

Government of West Bengal

Land & Land Reforms Department

Land Reforms Branch

Notification

No. 484. Ref Dated Calcutta, the

22

nd

June, 1987

In exercise of the power conferred by section 13 of the West Bengal

Estates Acquisition Act, 19532, (West Bengal Act I of 1954), read with

rule 12 of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Rules, 1954 the

Governor has been pleased to order as follows :-

1. All the khas and vested tanks and ferries belonging to the State

shall, subject to the directions issued, or may be issued, by the

Government from time to time, be managed by the Gram Panchayats

under whose respective jurisdictions the said tanks and ferries are

located. In case a khas or vested tank or ferry falls under the

jurisdiction of more than one Gram Panchayat, the same shall be

managed by the Panchayat Samity under whose jurisdiction it falls,

and in case such a tank or ferry falls under the jurisdiction of more

than one Panchayat Samity, the same shall be managed by the Zilla

Parishad.

2. The khas and vested tanks and ferries which are under valid lease

or license granted by the Collectors, shall be managed by the Gram

Panchayats, Panchayat Samities or Zilla Parishads, as the case may

be, on expiry of the existing term of said lease or license.

3. The khas and vested tanks and ferries which were handed over by

the Collectors to the Gram Panchayats Panchayat Samities or Zilla

Parish ads, as the case may be, in pursuance of the memo no.2634

(15)-GE(M) dated 7th March, 1979 of the Board of Revenue,

14

Government of West Bengal, Shall be deemed to have been always

managed, and shall continue, to be managed, by the respective Gram

Panchayats, Panchayat Samities or Zilla Parishads on and from the

date on which the said tanks and ferries were handed over to them by

the Collectors.

By order of the Governor,

Sd/-B.C. Mukherjee,

Secretary to the Govt. of West Bengal."

23. It is also pertinent to mention that Section 41(ha) of the Specific Relief

Act, 1963, prohibits interim orders of such nature. Courts should not

pass injunctions in respect of projects or tenders which involve public

interest. In this case, ferry services are provided to villagers of the locality,

multiple times a day, to cross the river Jalangi for their business,

livelihood, education and other purposes. Natural resource cannot be

alienated by way of state largesse. There must be a reciprocal

consideration either in the form of earning revenue or to subserve the

common good, or both. The endeavour must be maximization of revenue

returns. Reference is made to the decision of Goa Foundation v. M/s

Sesa Sterlite Ltd. & Ors. reported in (2018) 4 SCC 218. In Centre for

Public Interest Litigation vs Union of India reported in (2012) 3 SCC

1, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that, whenever a contract was awarded or

a licence was granted, the public authority should adopt a transparent

and fair method for making selections, so that all eligible persons could

get a fair opportunity of competition.

24. The decision in Raj Kumar (supra) does not apply to the facts of the

present case. Only if the illegality in the selection process goes to the very

15

root and if the petitioners come to know of the illegality later, a writ is

maintainable at the instance of an unsuccessful candidate.

25. The decision in Shah Babulal Khimji (supra) was relied on by Mr.

Banerjee on the principle of a presumption that a discretionary order

always correct. In our view the order impugned was passed without

reasons as to why the entire e-auction process should not be given effect

to, at the instance of a unsuccessful bidder.

26. The writ petitioner could not make out a, prima facie, case for grant of the

interim order. The effect of setting aside the first order will

consequentially follow. The order impugned is set aside. The authority is

free to proceed on the basis of the auction. All steps taken, shall abide by

the result of the writ petition.

27. We have given our reasons for setting aside the order impugned, insofar

as the grant of ad interim order is concerned. The appellant will be added

as a party respondent in the writ petition. The writ petition will be heard

upon exchange of affidavits. All the respondents and the panchayat samiti

will file their opposition within the time fixed by the writ court. The writ

petition will be heard on the basis of the pleadings and prayers.

28. Urgent Photostat certified copies of this judgment, if applied for, be

supplied to the parties upon fulfilment of requisite formalities.

(Shampa Sarkar, J.)

I Agree.

(Arjun Ray Mukherjee, J.)