Form No. J (2)

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Debangsu Basak And The Hon’ble Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi FMA 77 of 2025 IA NO: CAN/1/2025 Asiruddin Sk vs.

The State of West Bengal & Ors.

For the Appellant : Mr. Gangadhar Das, Advocate Mr. Tanmoy Chattopadhyay, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Anwari Quraishi, Advocate Mr. Mohim Chowdhury, Advocate For the Respondent No.7 : Ms. Chaitali Bhattacharyya, Advocate Mr. Swarvanu Saha, Advocate Mr. Nitin Singhania, D.M. Malda (in virtual platform)

Heard on : 05.02.2025 Judgment on : 05.02.2025 DEBANGSU BASAK, J.:-

1. Appeal is at the behest of the appellant and directed against the judgment and order dated December 5, 2024 passed in WPA 21947 of 2022.

Signed By :

2. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant submits that, contract for running and operating Pirganj Balarampur Ferry Ghat (for the sake of convenience referred to as the ‘Ferry Ghat’) was awarded to the private respondent in a public auction held in terms of the auction notice dated July 13, 2020. He submits that, the contract was for a period of two years. However, subsequently, the contract should extend unilaterally for another period of three years. He submits that, extension is beyond the initial contract and is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

3. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant submits that, appellant filed a writ petition challenging the grant of such extension. He submits that, the learned Single Judge erred in allowing the extension to continue since, the extension itself was bad in law.

4. State and the private respondent are represented.

5. In course of hearing of the appeal, we called upon the Zilla Parishad under which, the Ferry Ghat was operating as also the State to submit report as to the process of auction in respect of the Ferry Ghat since, the extended period was also scheduled to expire in the month of July 25.

6. Initially, we were not receiving any appropriate response from authority.

Consequently, by our order dated January 27, 2025, we called upon the District Magistrate to be present on the virtual platform on the date of Signed By :

hearing to assist the Court with regard to the queries of the Court relating to the tender process.

7. Pursuant to our direction dated January 27, 2025, a report is submitted in Court on behalf of the State which be taken on record.

8. District Magistrate appears in the virtual platform and apprises the Court of the tender process in terms of the impugned order of the learned Single Judge.

9. District Magistrate stated that, E auction notice for the Ferry Ghat was issued on January 18, 2025 and the end date for participation of the E auction is fixed on February 11, 2025. The start and end date of the E auction is scheduled on February 18, 2025 and that finalization of the tenderer will be done immediately on February 18, 2025.

10. In response to a query of the Court, District Magistrate stated that, the new bidder will be given charge of the Ferry Ghat with effect from July 30, 2025 since, the present contract stands extend till July 29, 2025. In response to a further query of the Court, District Magistrate submits that, the E auction notice dated January 18, 2025 does not specify the commencement date of the tender that may be awarded in respect of the Ferry Ghat pursuant to such tender process.

11. Learned advocate appearing for the private respondent submits that, although, the initial tender was for a period of two years, it was extended Signed By :

for subsequent period of three years pursuant to a policy decision taken by the authorities. She refers to the resolution of the Zilla Parishad in this regard. She submits that, other Ferry Ghats are operating on the same parameters. Therefore, according to her, there was no mala fide in her client getting the extension of the contract for the Ferry Ghat.

12. Learned advocate appearing for the private respondent relies upon (2010)

15 Su