Panchayat Samitis may auction ferry ghats; hereditary boatmen’s preference under Land Manual does not apply to ferries under their control

The writ petitioner challenged e-auction notices dated 25 June 2026 for the lease of 13 ferry ghats, contending that Rule 281(iii) of the West Bengal Land and Land Reforms Manual, 1991 required preferential settlement to a local cooperative society of hereditary boatmen and that its request for extension had been kept pending.

The appellant, the writ petitioner and respondent no. 6 participated in the auction for Malopara Ferry Ghat; the appellant was declared the successful bidder and paid the first-year lease rent.

On 31 July 2026, the Single Judge directed that the auction not be acted upon until 21 August 2026 or further orders.

The appellant appealed, contending that the order was made without hearing him and without adequate reasons.

Whether the interim order restraining implementation of the concluded e-auction should be set aside where the successful bidder was not heard and the order did not address the requirements for interim relief

Whether Rule 281(iii) of the Land Manual governed the settlement of ferry ghats managed by a Panchayat Samiti, notwithstanding the Panchayat framework and the State’s e-auction process

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 under the Land Manual in the circumstances specified there; however, the court held that the Manual did not override the Panchayat framework where the ferry ghats had been vested in and were managed by a Panchayat Samiti.

Article 243G of the Constitution and Rule 31 of the West Bengal Panchayat (Panchayat Samiti Administration) Rules, 2008 support Panchayat functions concerning assigned ferries, including their management.

Rule 281(iii) of the Land Manual provides for preferential settlement to qualifying local boatmen’s cooperatives or partnership concerns in the circumstances it specifies, but the court held it did not bind the Panchayat Samiti in this case.

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

The court also relied on Section 41(ha) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 and the principles of transparent competition and public interest in public contracts and resource allocation, citing *Goa Foundation v. M/s Sesa Sterlite Ltd.* and *Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India*.

The court found that the Single Judge’s order did not assess whether the writ petitioner had a prima facie case, whether the balance of convenience supported restraining the auction, or whether refusal of relief would cause irreparable injury.

The auction had concluded, the appellant had received a letter of acceptance and had paid the first-year rent; the petitioner had also participated in the auction and applied for interim relief without the successful bidder being heard.

On the governing framework, the court concluded that the ferry ghats were managed by the Panchayat Samiti, which was empowered under the Panchayat regime to manage assigned ferries and conduct the settlement process. The Land Manual therefore did not displace that authority or require application of Rule 281(iii) to this settlement.

The court considered that a transparent auction promoted fair competition and public revenue, and that the petitioner had not established a basis for stopping the concluded process at the interim stage.

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

The appellant was directed to be added as a respondent, and the writ petition was to proceed after exchange of affidavits, with the Panchayat Samiti and other respondents filing their opposition within the time fixed by the writ court.