Sobhan Ali Mondal vs South 24-Parganas Zilla Parishad

Soumitra Pal, J.—The writ Petitioner was running a ferry service it has been stated that for the year 2003-2004 the Petitioner negotiated with the Respondent No. V for plying the ferry. On June 12, 2003 the authorities asked him to deposit Rs. 1,600/- for plying the same and assured that the Petitioner shall be allowed to ply such ferry service on deposit of the amount. The Petitioner deposited the amount. However, it is contended that inspite of depositing such amount the Petitioner was not allowed to ply the ferry during the year 2003-2004 and the Respondent No. 1 is preparing to finalise the bid for the year 2004-2005. As the Petitioner was not allowed to ply the ferry. The Petitioner by letter dated January 22, 2004 demanded justice and compensation was demanded for incurring losses for not handing over the ferry service inspite of the payment. Being aggrieved the Petitioner has moved the writ petition.

The prayers which are relevant are as follows:

a) A writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondents to show cause as to why the Petitioner should not be given the Ferry for the year 2004-2005 and pending the hearing of the Rule the auction for this year 2004-2005 should be stayed.

b) A writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondents to show cause as to why the Petitioner should not be give compensation at the rate of Rs. 200/- (100 for boat and 100 for helper) till the Ferry is rendered to the Petitioner ....

Though Directions were issued for filing affidavits in opposition, the Respondents concerned have not filed the same. Mr. Dasgupta appearing on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 relied upon the statement and annexures to the writ petition in support of his contentions.

Mr. Sk. Abu Sufian learned Advocate appearing for the Petitioner reiterating the statements made in the writ petition submitted that as the Petitioner was not allowed to run the ferry inspite of payment for the year 2003-2004, Petitioner should be allowed to run the ferry for the year 2004-2005. Prayer was made that the auction for granting ferry service for the year 2004-2005 should be stayed. Mr. Sufian relied on the judgments Amal Kumar Bose v. State of West Bengal and Ors. 2003 (2) C.L.J. 155 reported in, State Bank of India v. Amal Kumar Sen and Ors. 1988 (2) C.H.N. 95 reported in and Narayan Chandra Dey v. State of West Bengal and Ors. 1988 (2) C.H.N. 361 reported in support of his contentions.

Mr. Supratim Dasgupta, learned Advocate opposing the writ application submitted that money was accepted by the Zilla Parishad from the Petitioner for plying the ferry service during the year 2003-2004. However, the term has expired on March 31, 2004. It was submitted that it appears from the annex. P-6 to the writ petition that besides the Petitioner there was another bidder. The Petitioner and the said bidder were called, for a discussion on August 22, 2003, but as the Petitioner failed and neglected to appear, the Petitioner was not allowed to run the ferry, service. Referring to Clause 9 of the tender notice, being annex. P-4 to the writ petition, it was submitted that finalisation of tender was subject to the approval by the Zilla Parishad the Respondent No. 1 had the right to reject any tender without assigning any reason-no right shall accrue inspite of deposit unless approved by the Respondent No. 1. Submission was made, if application is made, money deposited shall be refunded. The Petitioner may participate in the tender for the year 2004-2005 but in no case the process for issuing tender for the year 2004-2005 should be disturbed. It was further submitted that the other bidder for the year 2003-2004 has not been added as a party in the instant writ petition and if any order is passed, rights accuring to the other bidder may be affected.

Having heard the learned Advocates for the parties, I am of the view that though admittedly the Petitioner deposited the money for running the ferry for the year 2003-2004 and was not allowed to ply due to certain problems but the said deposit cannot-be a ground for plying the ferry for the year 2004-2Q05. The contention of the Petitioner that since the Respondent No. 1 collected a sum of Rs. 1,600/- for running the ferry during the year 2003-2004 and having not been allowed to ply, the Petitioner should be allowed to run the ferry service during the year 2004-2005 is not tenable. No law has been cited in support of such contention. Deposit of money has not created any right in favour of the Petitioner. Clause 9 of the tender notice acts as a bar. In such circumstances the judgments cited on behalf of the Petitioner are not relevant. The other bidder whose names appears in serial No. 2 at page 16 has not been made a party. Orders cannot be passed which affects any person who is not a party. No averment has been made in the writ petition as to what was the outcome of the meeting which was held on August 22, 2003 relating to the bid for the year 2003-2004.

Thus, the writ application is dismissed. The Respondents are free float tenders for the ferry service for the year 2004-2005 and finalise the same . If not already finalized, the Petitioner may put in his bid for the year 2004-2005 if he is otherwise eligible. For refund of the sum of Rs. 1,600/-, the same shall be refunded to the Petitioner within a period of 15 days from the date of making an application. Regarding the payment of compensation the Petitioner may approach the proper forum, if so advised.

No order as to costs.

Urgent xerox certified copy of the judgment and order be supplied to the appearing parties, if applied for, on priority basis.