Bengal panchayat bodies can auction ferry ghats; hereditary boatmen’s societies have no automatic preference, Calcutta High Court rules

The writ petitioner challenged e-auction notices issued by the Hariharpara Panchayat Samiti for leases of 13 ferry ghats, contending that Rule 281(iii) of the West Bengal Land and Land Reforms Manual, 1991 entitled a local boatmen’s cooperative society to preferential settlement without tender.

The appellant, the writ petitioner and Respondent No. 6 participated in the auction for Bhandardaha (Humairpur) Ferry Ghat.

The appellant was declared the successful bidder, received a letter of acceptance and deposited the first year’s lease rent.

The Single Judge directed impleadment of a further respondent and restrained the auction from being acted upon until 21 August 2026 or further orders.

The successful bidder appealed against that interim order, which had been made without hearing it.

1. Whether the Single Judge’s interim restraint on the concluded e-auction was justified, having regard to the petitioner’s participation in the auction, the successful bidder’s interest, and the requirements for interim relief.

2. Whether Rule 281(iii) of the Land Manual governed settlement of ferry ghats managed by a Panchayat Samiti and displaced the Samiti’s authority to settle them through e-auction.

3. Whether the appeal could be confined to the first interim order despite subsequent extensions of that order.

Interim relief requires consideration of a prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss.

Section 52(4) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955, and Rule 28A of the West Bengal Land Reforms Rules, 1965, provide for management of land within their scope in accordance with applicable existing law, rules, manuals or principles; the Court held that the Land Manual did not govern ferry ghats vested in and managed by Panchayat Samitis.

Rule 266 of the Manual addresses transfer of specified ferries to Panchayat institutions, while Article 243G of the Constitution, Entry 13 of the Eleventh Schedule and Rule 31 of the West Bengal Panchayat (Panchayat Samiti Administration) Rules, 2008 support Panchayat Samitis’ authority to manage assigned ferries.

The Court considered Rule 281(iii) of the Manual, which provides for preferential settlement with qualifying local boatmen’s societies in specified circumstances, but held it inapplicable to the Samiti-managed ghats in question.

The Court also referred to Section 41(ha) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, and the public-interest principles in Goa Foundation v. M/s Sesa Sterlite Ltd. and Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India concerning restraint of public projects and transparent, competitive allocation of public resources.

It distinguished Raj Kumar v. Shakti Raj and Shah Babulal Khimji v. Jayaben D. Kania.

The Court found that the writ petitioner had participated in the e-auction and challenged it after being unsuccessful; the interim order had been obtained without disclosure of that participation and without hearing the successful bidder or the Panchayat Samiti.

Because the auction had concluded and the appellant had received acceptance and paid the first year’s rent, the balance of convenience did not favour restraining the process; the Single Judge had not adequately addressed the interim-relief tests or the petitioner’s entitlement to challenge the auction.

The Court further held, prima facie, that the Manual’s provisions did not override the Panchayat Samiti’s authority over ferries vested in it, and that e-auction was a permissible means of ensuring transparent competition and maximising public revenue.

It therefore found no basis for the interim restraint.

The authority was permitted to proceed on the basis of the auction, with all steps remaining subject to the result of the writ petition.

The appellant was directed to be added as a respondent; the writ petition was to proceed after exchange of affidavits and be decided on its pleadings and prayers.

The Court confined its decision to the interim order under appeal and did not finally determine the writ petition.