Krishna Chandra Mondal vs State of West Bengal

Susanta Chatterji, J.—The present writ petition is at the instance of Krishna Chandra Mondal, claiming to be a hereditary Patni, seeking reliefs by way of issue of Writ of Mandamus to command the Respondents to treat the Petitioner as the highest bidder of the auction for the lease of the Sreerampur Ferry Ghat pursuant to the Circular as mentioned in Annex. ''A'' to the writ petition and to settle the same to the Petitioner for the year 1399 B.S. in preference to others and to cancel the settlement in favour of the private Respondent No. 7 for the same year and for other consequential reliefs.

Grievance of the Petitioner is that the Respondents Nos. 2 to 5 have acted illegally in not treating the writ Petitioner as the highest bidder in view of the Circular of the Board of Revenue, being in Annex. ''A'' and the judgment of the Hon''ble Court, being in Annex. ''B'', to the writ petition, as hereditary Patni.

It is contended that the Respondents Nos. 2 to 5 have acted illegally in treating the Respondent No. 7 as the highest bidder in preference to the Petitioner by ignorng the aforesaid Circular and the judgment. It transpires from Annex. ''A'' that there is a Circular of the Board of Revenue, Government of West Bengal, dated April 2, 1960 (Annex. ''A'' to the writ petition) indicating, inter alia, that in supersession of the orders contained in the Boards'' Memo, dated October 17, 1958, it is provided that in the matter of settlement of ferries (other than those declared as ''Public Ferries'' under the Bengal Ferries Act, 1885) which have vested in Government under the E.A. Act, there should be an open bid in each case and everybody including the hereditary Patnis should be allowed to bid in each case. If the bid offered by a hereditary Patni is 85 per cent of more of the highest bid, the settlement should be made with the Patni in preference to the highest bidder. Annexure ''B'' to the petition relates to the disposal of C.R. No. 4058 of 1965 on March 22, 1966, that the Patnis will have preference in obtaining the settlement of Ferries.

The writ petition is opposed by the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the private Respondent No. 7, and also by the Midnapore Zilla Parishad authority. It is placed on record that the Respondent No. 7 is also a hereditary Patni. It is highlighted that all private ferries subsequently vested in the State of West Bengal as per provisions laid down in Sections. 4, 5 and 6 of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953, and the such vested ferries came under the control and supervision of the respective District Boards and subsequently under the Zilla Parishad in pursuance of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973. Further, that after enactment of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, the power of the District Magistrate in running the Public Ferries and its management and control has since vested in the Zilla Parishad in pursuance of the Bengal Ferries Act. On or about April 18, 1983, the private Respondent No. 7 was granted lease of Sreerampur Ferry Ghat by Midnapore Zilla Parishad by Memo, dated April 18, 1983, and under the said Memo, the said private Respondent No. 7 was directed by the Zilla Parishad to carry on the business of the said ferry ghat till fresh auction is made. The period of Ezara was then enhanced by the Midnapore Zilla Parishad by memo, dated May 18, 1989, but he was debarred to collect the Government approved tell rate though monthly rent of the ferry ghat was enhanced to Rs. 3,000. Challenging the said direction, the Respondent No. 7 herein moved a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution on November 29, 1983 and the said order dated November 29, 1983 modified by order dated February 9, 1984, to the extent that till the hearing of the application for vacating interim orders, the interim order made in the Rule shall continue till fresh settlement of the ferry is made, but there will be no restrain upon the Zilla Parishad from holding fresh auction for settlement of the ferry in accordance with law and subject to the decision in the Rule.

Pending the disposal of the Rule, the Zilla Parishad issued a notice dated February 17, 1984, intimating auction of Sreerampur Perry Ghat for the year 1984-85. The present Respondent No. 7 challenged the said impugned notice of auction and there was another order from this Court in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on April 10, 1984. Then on June 1, 1991, the Respondent No. 7 was informed by a letter issued by the Karmadhakshya, Midnapure Zilla Parishad intimating him that due to ad interim orders passed in the aforesaid writ petitions bearing C.R. 11644 (W) of 1983 and C.R. 4529 (W) of 1984, the auction of Sreerampur Ferry Ghat service is not possible, but due to increased rate of expenses the Respondent No. 7 was requested to increase monthly ferry rent from Rs. 3,000 wilfully and to intimate the wilful enhanced rate of ferry rent to the Midnapore Zilla Parishad by June 6, 1991, in pursuance of which the private Respondent No. 7 intimated the Karmadhakshya on June 3, 1991 that he was ready to enhance the monthly ferry rent from Rs. 3,000 to Rs. 6,000 per month. Such offer was accepted by the Midnapore Zilla Parishad by their memo, dated June 8, 1991, and the Respondent No. 7 was allowed to carry on the running of the ferry service till further order on payment of enhanced rate of Rs. 6,000 per month.

The present writ Petitioner moved a writ petition allegedly suppressing all the aforesaid facts. The private Respondent No. 7 herein was impleaded therein as the Respondent. He entered appearance and filed affidavtt-in-opposition. The said writ petition being C.O. No. 7777 (W) of 1991 filed by the present Petitioner as aforesaid came up for hearing along with two other writ petitions of the private Respondent No. 7 being C.R. No. 11,644(") of 1983 and C.R. No. 4529 (W) of 1984 before Paritosh Kumar Mukherjee J. and these writ petitions were disposed of by His lordship diecting the Midnapore Zilla Parishad to take steps for holding public auction on any date before April 14, 1992 in accordance with the Rules and Regulations framed in the Bengal Ferries Act, 1985, and the Commissioner, Burdwan Division, was directed to revise the rate of toll prevailing since 1983. These writ petitions were disposed of on March 11, 1992.

Pursuant to such order, the present writ Petitioner and private Respondent No. 7 both participated in the said auction and ultimately the Respondent No. 7 was declared the highest bidder and offered to pay Rs. 1,93,000 for one year comprising the period from Baisakh 1, 1399 B.S. to Chaitra 31, 1399 B.S., which he immediately put in with the Zilla Parishad authority. All other allegations in the writ petition have been controverted by the private Respondent No. 7. The Zilla Parishad authority also appeared, filled opposition and made submissions and also produced connected records.

Having heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties and on consideing all records, it appears that for several years the Respondent No. 7 is running the said ferry on payment of a paultry sum. There is scope for fresh auction, without having any right to continue on the basis of past records. The ratio of the judgment in Annex. ''B'' to the petition is certainly binding on the parties. It appears that there is sufficient force and contention in the contentions made by the learned Advocate of the Petitioner that the authorities concerned have got to look into the scope of the Circular in Annex. ''A'' to the petition and the effect of the judgment in Annex. ''B'' thereto. Respondents have not considered the claim of the writ Petitioner as Patni and the offer made in accordance with law by him, which would 85 per cent of the highest bid and so on and so forth. From the materials on record, this Court is satisfied that the steps taken by the Respondents authorities in making and settlement in favour of the private Respondent No. 7 are contrary to and inconsistent with law and particularly to Annexs. ''A'' and ''B'' to the petition, as aforesaid.

For the aforesaid reasons, the settlement made in favour of the private Respondent No. 7 is quashed and the Respondents concerned ae directed to consider the claim of he Petitioner in view of Annexs. ''A'' and ''B8'' aforesaid, to the writ petition by giving a chance of hearing to the Petitioner and also to the private Respondent No. 7, within a period of 4 weeks from the date of communication of the order and to settle the concerned ferry in accordance with law.

The present position with regard to the running of the ferry will continue until a fresh decision is made as directed aforesaid. All other orders are vacated.

The writ petition is thus disposed of without costs.

The xerox copy of the order, authenticated by the Deputy Registrar (Ct.), be given to the Advocates for the parties on the usual terms and conditions.