Authority: Calcutta High Court

Order Date: 3 September 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Petitioners – Azimganj Nimtala Ghat Mallar Samity & Ors. (a boatmen cooperative society); Respondents – The State of West Bengal & Ors., including Jiaganj‑Azimganj Municipality (respondent no. 9) and the State.
  • Nature of Proceeding: Writ petition challenging the legality of a tender process initiated by Jiaganj‑Azimganj Municipality for settlement of the Jiaganj Nimtala Ferry Ghat for the period commencing 1 October 2026.
  • Background:
  • The ferry ghat was originally privately owned and later declared a municipal ferry under Section 132(2) of the West Bengal Municipal Act, 1993, via a notification dated 1 February 2019 issued by the Department of Urban Development & Municipal Affairs, Government of West Bengal.
  • Petitioners, a cooperative society of marginalised boatmen, previously participated in a tender process, emerged as the successful bidder, and were granted settlement in 2023, which is set to expire on 30 September 2026.
  • The Municipality issued a fresh tender notice on 8 August 2026, inviting bids with a bid value raised from Rs 21 lakhs to Rs 35 lakhs. Petitioners alleged the increase was arbitrary and intended to exclude them.
  • Earlier Litigation:
  • Petitioners filed WPA 14405 of 2023 challenging the 2019 municipal ferry notification and the 2023 tender process.
  • A coordinate Bench of this Court, on 28 June 2023, refused to interfere with the 2019 notification and the tender, but granted liberty to the petitioners to participate in the tender.
  • Petitioners subsequently participated, won the tender, and have been operating the ferry ghat.
  • Legal Submissions:
  • Petitioners argued that the District Magistrate should determine economic rent per Clause 281(iii) of the West Bengal Land & Land Reforms Manual, 1991, and that the bid value increase lacked rational basis.
  • Respondent No. 9 argued that the tender valuation is a commercial decision of the Municipality, not subject to writ jurisdiction, and that no illegality exists.
  • The Court noted that Section 4 of the Bengal Ferries Act, 1885, does not apply to municipal ferries, rendering the petitioners' reliance on Sections 9 and 15 misplaced.
  • The tender notice explicitly allowed Boatmen Co‑operative Societies or Partnership Firms to bid and stated that settlement would follow the preference prescribed in Clause 281(iii) of the Manual.
  • The Court clarified that the economic rent formula (20 % of average net income of the preceding three years) applies only when a single cooperative/partnership exists; where multiple entities exist, a competitive tender is required.
  • Principles Applied:
  • The scope of judicial interference in tender matters is limited to the decision‑making process, not the merits, unless there is mala‑fides, perversity, arbitrariness, or discrimination.
  • Constructive res judicata precludes the petitioners from re‑raising issues already litigated and accepted in the 2023 proceedings.

Final Outcome

  • The writ petition (WPA 18458 of 2026) is dismissed in its entirety.
  • No affidavits were filed by respondents; therefore, the petitioners' allegations are not deemed admitted.
  • No order as to costs.
  • Parties may obtain an urgent certified copy of the order upon compliance with usual formalities.

Topics: Municipal Tender, Ferry Ghat Settlement