11.9. 2025 item No.7 n.b. ct. no. 24 WPA 10646 of 2015 Smt. Bina Roy Adhikari Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Ayanabha Raha, Mr. Yashraj Roy, ….. for the petitioner. Mr. Amitava Mitra, …… for the State respondent. The petitioner is a successful bidder of auction of lease of Sandeshkhali Ferrie Ghat conducted by the Zila Parishad, North 24 Parganas. She was given information being a successful bidder, vide memo no. 193/N.A.P. dated February 17, 2014. By such memo, she was instructed to pay amount of Rs.10,00,000/-(Rupees Ten Lakhs) for yearly rent for lease of such ferrie at Sandeshkhali. In terms of such direction, petitioner has deposited Rs.7,50,000/- on February 21, 2014 and Rs.2,50,000/- vide two separate receipts on the same date. The cashier North 24 Parganas Zila Parishad has received the cheque of the petitioner. It is the contention of the petitioner that after submission of such yearly tender amount, the petitioner approached to take possession of such ferry ghat but due to some local obstruction, she could not able to run the ferrie properly. There are several meetings held by the concerned authority at their office of the North 24 Parganas Zila Parishad wherefrom it appears that the petitioner could not posses ferrie ghat due to some local obstruction. Time and again, petitioner approached the concerned Zila Parishad as well as the respondent authority to allow her to run the ferrie but it was not possible. Subsequently, he filed several representations to the authorities, so that here tender amount for yearly rent be refunded. It is the contention of the petitioner that her application for refund was not considered in respect of several reminders, hence she approached this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner has deposited the entire yearly rent but she cannot perform due to the local obstruction. It is further contention of the petitioner that authority concerned is duty bound, after accepting such lease amount to allow the petitioner to run the ferrie. However, the contract period has already been over thus, the petitioner may be allowed to refund back the entire lease amount. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent authority submits that the claim of the petitioner, if appears to be correct, the concerned authority may be directed to consider the representation of the petitioner. It is further contention of the learned counsel for the respondent authority that the time period of the 2 lease has already been over, so at this juncture only the petitioner may have refund the money, which she already deposited. Considering the entire situation, also considering the submissions of the petitioner as well as respondent authority, it appears that the petitioner was successful bidder in a tender process initiated by the North 24 Parganas Zila Parishad for the purpose of lease of ferrie at Sandeshkhali. After selection, petitioner has deposited the amount of Rs.10,00,000/-, which was accepted by the concerned Zila Parishad due to some objection of local persons, the petitioner could not conduct ferrie operation. It is the duty of the concerned authorities to allow the petitioner to run the ferrie. Instead of that, the respondents could not control the local unrest, though the petitioner has lodged the specific G.D. to the concerned police station. However, now the situation is otherwise, the time period of the ferrie lease has already over. But the petitioner has deposited the money and could not perform the ferrie operation. At this juncture, the petitioner is entitled to refund back the entire money, which she deposited of the concerned North 24 Parganas Zila Parishad. Considering the same, the instant writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to make a fresh representation with detailed documents before the 3 District Magistrate, North 24 Parganas, being the respondent no.5 of the instant writ petition within a fortnight. On receiving such representation, the respondent no.5 shall dispose of the representation within eight weeks from the date of receiving of such representation, according to law, after giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. I make it clear that this Court have not gone into the merit of this matter, but only observed that if the petitioner successful in bidding operation and if the concerned Zila Parisad has received yearly rent, and if it appears, petitioner could not perform to run the ferry due to local obstructions, the petitioner is entitled to refund back the money. The respondent no.5 shall dispose of the representation in accordance with law without being influenced by any observation of this Court. Since no affidavits are exchanged between the parties, the allegation made in the writ petition shall be deemed to have been not admitted. All parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. ( Subhendu Samanta, J.) 4