The court emphasized the principles of judicial review of administrative action and the need for transparency and maximization of revenue through open auctions for public property.

ORDER :

1. This writ petition has been filed for a direction upon the respondent nos.7 and 8 to cancel and/or quash the notice dated April 6, 2022 with regard to handing over the possession of the ferryghat to the Pradhan of the Mahanandatola Gram Panchayat, upon expiry of the lease of the petitioner.

2. The petitioner was the operator of Kosi Passengers Ferry Ghat. Lease period of the petitioner had been ended on March 31, 2022.

3. The petitioner submits that until the ferry ghat is settled by way of an open tender, the petitioner must be allowed to operate.

4. This Court does not find that the rules with regard to settlement of the ferry ghat and the circulars issued in this behalf permits continuation after expiry of the lease. It may so happen that under emergent situation a stop-gap arrangement is made by the authority. However, this Court sitting in judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot direct the authorities to allow the petitioner to operate until the open tender is finalised.

5. This Court also does not find from the records that the authorities have decided to settle the ferry ghat by way of open tender/public auction.

6. The petitioner also submits that the Pradhan did not have any right to ask the petitioner to hand over possession of the concerned ferry ghat as the water body over which the ferry services were carried on, spread over more than 5 acres and such settlement cannot be made by the concerned Gram Panchayat.

7. Mr. Sufi Kamal, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Pradhan, submits that the Gram Panchayat has approached the Block Development Officer to permit a public auction of the said ferry ghat. However, he submits that no decision has been taken with regard to operation of the ferry ghat in the interim period.

8. Mr. Mahata, learned Senior Government Advocate submits that the ferry ghat was settled in favour of the petitioner by the concerned Gram Panchayat, which means that the area of the water body must not have exceeded 5 acres. He next submits that the petitioner does not have a right of extension in view of the decision of the Panchayat authorities to go for public auction.

9. Under such circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of. The Court is of the view that, when the panchayat authorities themselves, have decided that the ferry ghat should be settled by public auction, such a policy decision cannot be interfered with under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

10. Transparency and maximisation of the revenue by allowing all eligible persons to participate in such tender is the correct method.

11. The court does not have any authority to either set aside the auction or to hold the policy of the authority to be bad in law, for the following reasons:-

a) Judicial review of an administrative decision is permitted only when the decision making authority does not act in accordance with law or acts arbitrarily and with mala fide intentions.

12. In the matter of Tata Cellular v. Union of India, reported in (1994) 6 SCC 651, the Hon'ble Apex Court laid down the following principles with regard to judicial review of administrative action:-

(1) The modern trend points to judicial restraint in administrative action.

(2) The court does not sit as a court of appeal but merely reviews the manner in which the decision was made.

(3) The court does not have the expertise to correct the administrative decision. If a review of the administrative decision is permitted it will be substituting its own decision, without the necessary expertise which itself may be fallible.

(4) The terms of the invitation to tender cannot be open to judicial scrutiny because the invitation to tender is in the realm of contract. Normally speaking, the decision to accept the tender or award the contract is reached by process of negotiations through several tiers. More often than not, such decisions are made qualitatively by experts.

(5) The Government must have freedom of contract. In other words, a fair