01.09.2026 sl.11 Ct No. 446 tkm WPA 22464 of 2026 Jiaganj Azimganj Boatman Ferryghat Co-operative Society Ltd. & Anr. Vs State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Saptansu Basu, Sr. Adv. Mr. S Sanyal Ms. Poulami Chakraborty ….for the petitioners Mr. Anindya Lahiri, Sr. Adv. Mr. Asif Dewan ….for respondent no. 5 Mr. Sukanta Ghosh Mr. Arghya Chatterjee ….for the State 1. By preferring this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the legality and/or justifiability of the notice inviting tender dated 8th August, 2026 and the tender process initiated pursuant to the said notice. In addition, the petitioners have prayed for a direction to enhance the bid value reasonably in terms of Clause 281(iii) of the West Bengal Land and Land Reforms Manual, 1991 (in short, “the Manual”). 2. Mr. Basu, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, submits that the petitioners are a co-operative society formed by the poor boatmen of the locality, who are engaged in providing ferry services at Jiaganj Azimganj Boatman Ferry Ghat, which falls within the territorial jurisdiction of Jiaganj Azimganj Municipality. Initially, the District Magistrate used to settle the ferry ghat in favour of 2 the local boatmen’s co-operative society in accordance with the provisions contained in Clause 281(iii) of the Manual. He submits that, at present, the Municipality has been vested with the authority to settle the ferry ghat and has also adopted the principle embodied in Clause 281(iii) of the Manual. However, the Municipality has exorbitantly enhanced the bid value, without any rational or justifiable basis, with the sole object of preventing the petitioners from participating in the said tender process. 3. Referring to certain portions of the tender notice dated 8th August, 2026, he submits that, in the preceding year, the bid value of the ferry ghat was Rs. 75,00,000/-, whereas the earnest money was fixed at Rs. 7,50,000/-. However, in the current year, the bid value has been enhanced to Rs. 1,25,00,000/- and the earnest money has correspondingly been fixed at Rs. 12,50,000/-. Referring to Clause 281(iii) of the Manual, he submits that the authority is empowered to enhance the bid value only on the basis of 25% of the average net income of the preceding three years. He, therefore, submits that a direction be issued to the concerned respondent not to proceed with the tender process pursuant to the notice dated 8th August, 2026 and to initiate a fresh tender process upon revising the bid value in accordance with the provisions contained in Clause 281(iii) of the Manual. 4. Mr. Lahiri, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent Municipality, vehemently opposes the 3 submissions advanced by Mr. Basu. He submits that the provision contained in Clause 281(iii) of the Manual relating to determination of the bid value is applicable where there is only one co-operative society or partnership concern in the locality. In such a case, under Clause 281(iii) of the Manual, the settlement is to be made with such co-operative society or partnership concern on the basis of the economic rent to be determined by the Collector, having regard to 25% of the average net income of the preceding three years, and no tender is required to be invited. 5. He submits that, in the present case, there is more than one co-operative society formed by the local boatmen. The Municipality, therefore, has no other option but to invite tenders from intending and eligible boatmen desirous of participating in the tender process. He further submits that, in terms of the policy adopted by the Government, publication of an e-tender notice is mandatory in respect of tenders involving a value exceeding Rs. 1 lakh. Since, in the present case, the bid value exceeds Rs. 1 lakh, the Municipality has duly issued an e-tender notice. 6. He contends that the fixation of the bid value falls within the policy decision of the Government and that the said bid value has been determined with a view to augmenting the revenue. Referring to Notification No. 925- (F(Y)) dated 14th February, 2017, issued by the Finance Department, Audit Branch, he submits that, where no one participates in a tender process involving a bid value 4 exceeding Rs. 1 crore, the authority initiating the tender process is required to refer the matter to the Finance Department. He submits that, in the present tender process, the last date for submission of applications by intending tenderers has been fixed as 4th September, 2026. If it is found that, on account of the bid value so fixed, no co- operative society formed by the local boatmen participates in the tender process, appropriate steps for extension of the last date shall be taken in terms of the Notification dated 14th February, 2017. 7. Heard learned Advocates for the respective parties and perused the materials on record. 8. Record would reveal that in an earlier round of litigation initiated by the petitioners by way of a writ petition being WPA 15148 of 2023, a coordinate Bench of this Court, taking note of the fact that the Municipality is vested with the authority to augment its revenue by inviting tenders and that the Municipality had adopted the principle embodied in Rule 281(iii) of the Manual, observed that the Municipality was entitled to settle the ferry ghat in favour of the bidder quoting the highest price. The stand taken by the petitioners in the earlier round of litigation makes it evident that the petitioners had not objected, and do not presently object, to the Municipality initiating a tender process for settlement of the ferry ghat. In the circumstances, no prejudice can be said to have been caused to the petitioners merely because the Municipality has initiated the tender 5 process. The petitioners, therefore, cannot seek to prevent or otherwise obstruct the Municipality from proceeding with the tender process. 9. Admittedly, Clause 281(iii) of the Manual provides that, where there is only one co-operative society or partnership firm in the locality, the ferry ghat is to be settled on the basis of the economic rent, which is to be determined with reference to 25% of the average net income of the preceding three years. In such a case, no tender is required to be invited and the settlement is to be made on the basis of the economic rent determined in terms of Clause 281(iii) of the Manual. 10. However, where there is more than one co-operative society or partnership firm, the provision relating to settlement on the basis of such economic rent cannot be invoked, and the ferry ghat is required to be settled through a competitive tender process. In the present case, the bid value has been determined by the officials having expertise in the field. This Court, exercising its writ jurisdiction, cannot sit in appeal over such determination or substitute its own assessment for that of the competent authorities, unless the decision is shown to be arbitrary, irrational or otherwise vitiated in law. Having regard to the aforesaid aspects, I find no substance in the contention raised by the petitioners. Accordingly, no interference is called for in the present writ petition. 6 11. In view of above, the present petition is dismissed without any order as to costs. 12. It is clarified that this order shall not preclude the petitioners from participating in the tender process initiated by the municipality pursuant to the notice dated 8.8.2026. (Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.)