The Calcutta High Court has held that Panchayat Samitis are empowered to auction ferry ghats vested in them and that the preference available to local boatmen's cooperative societies and hereditary Patnis under the West Bengal Land and Land Reforms Manual does not override the powers of Panchayat bodies to conduct e-auctions.

A Division Bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar and Justice Arjun Ray Mukherjee made the observation while setting aside an interim order that had stayed the e-auction of Bhandardaha (Humaipur) Ferry Ghat in Murshidabad.

The Court was hearing an appeal by Nowda Thana Ferry Service Co-operative Society Limited, which had emerged as the successful bidder for the ferry ghat with a bid of ₹4.90 lakh for a three-year lease. The Society had also deposited ₹1,63,334 towards the first year's lease rent.

The writ petitioner, Hariharpara Thana Ferry Service Co-operative Society Limited, had also participated in the e-auction but was unsuccessful. It subsequently challenged the auction, relying, among other things, on Rule 281(iii) of the Land Manual, which provides for preference to local boatmen's cooperative societies or partnerships formed by local boatmen and hereditary Patnis in certain circumstances.

The writ petitioner contended that it was the only cooperative society in the locality and that its members were local boatmen belonging to backward classes who had been operating the ferry for several years. It argued that under Rule 281(iii), where there was only one such cooperative society, settlement could be made in its favour without inviting a tender.

The Division Bench rejected the contention that the Land Manual could override the statutory powers of the Panchayat Samiti.

The Court held that the Land Manual would apply to management and operation of lands and ferry ghats that remained under the control of the State Government. However, the ferry ghats in the present case had been vested in the Panchayat Samiti.

The Bench referred to Article 243-G of the Constitution and the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973, as well as Rule 31 of the West Bengal Panchayat (Panchayat Samiti Administration) Rules, 2008, which empowers the concerned standing committee to manage ferries assigned by the Government to the Panchayat Samiti.

"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 Court observed.

The Bench held that even assuming that the Land Manual had statutory force, it could not have an overriding effect over the Panchayat Act in respect of ferry ghats vested in Panchayat bodies.

The Court specifically rejected the petitioner's reliance on Rule 281(iii), observing that the provision could not be invoked to compel the Panchayat Samiti to make a direct settlement in favour of the cooperative society.

The Bench noted that the Panchayat Samiti had adopted the e-auction process pursuant to notifications issued by the Department of Panchayats and Rural Development.

"E-auction ensures maximization of revenue," the Court said.

It further held that government or public authority properties should ordinarily be leased through a transparent auction process that provides all eligible bidders a level playing field.

"Every eligible bidder must be allowed to participate. Every eligible bidder is entitled to get a level playing field," the Bench observed.

The Court also took note of the fact that the writ petitioner had participated in the very e-auction which it subsequently challenged, but had failed to emerge as the successful bidder.

The Bench observed that the petitioner had obtained the interim order without disclosing its participation in the 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 Court observed.

The Division Bench further held that the Single Judge had not considered whether the writ petitioner had established a prima facie case, or whether the balance of convenience and irreparable injury warranted an injunction. By the time the interim order was passed, the auction had already concluded and a letter of acceptance had been issued to the successful bidder.

The Court also invoked Section 41(ha) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, observing that courts should not grant injunctions affecting projects or tenders involving public interest.

It noted that the ferry services were used by villagers to cross the Jalangi river for business, livelihood, education and other purposes, and emphasised that public resources should be managed in a manner that maximises revenue or serves the common good.

The Bench accordingly set aside the July 31, 2026 interim order and permitted the authorities to proceed on the basis of the auction. It clarified that all steps taken pursuant to the auction would remain subject to the final outcome of the pending writ petition.

The successful bidder was also directed

Case No: MAT 1503 of 2026

Case: Nowda Thana Ferry Service Co-operative Society Limited vs. The Secretary,Hariharpara Thana Ferry Service Co-operative Society Ltd. & Ors.