Soumitra Pal, J. - (1.) The writ Petitioner was running a ferry service it has been stated that for the year 2003 -2004 the Petitioner negotiated with the Respondent No. V for plying the ferry. On June 12, 2003 the authorities asked him to deposit Rs. 1,600/ - for plying the same and assured that the Petitioner shall be allowed to ply such ferry service on deposit of the amount. The Petitioner deposited the amount. However, it is contended that inspite of depositing such amount the Petitioner was not allowed to ply the ferry during the year 2003 -2004 and the Respondent No. 1 is preparing to finalise the bid for the year 2004 -2005. As the Petitioner was not allowed to ply the ferry. The Petitioner by letter dated January 22, 2004 demanded justice and compensation was demanded for incurring losses for not handing over the ferry service inspite of the payment. Being aggrieved the Petitioner has moved the writ petition. The prayers which are relevant are as follows: a) A writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondents to show cause as to why the Petitioner should not be given the Ferry for the year 2004 -2005 and pending the hearing of the Rule the auction for this year 2004 -2005 should be stayed. b) A writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondents to show cause as to why the Petitioner should not be give compensation at the rate of Rs. 200/ - (100 for boat and 100 for helper) till the Ferry is rendered to the Petitioner ....
(2.) Though Directions were issued for filing affidavits in opposition, the Respondents concerned have not filed the same. Mr. Dasgupta appearing on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 relied upon the statement and annexures to the writ petition in support of his contentions.
(3.) Mr. Sk. Abu Sufian learned Advocate appearing for the Petitioner reiterating the statements made in the writ petition submitted that as the Petitioner was not allowed to run the ferry inspite of payment for the year 2003 -2004, Petitioner should be allowed to run the ferry for the year 2004 -2005. Prayer was made that the auction for granting ferry service for the year 2004 -2005 should be stayed. Mr. Sufian relied on the judgments Amal Kumar Bose v/s. State of West Bengal and Ors., 2003 (2) C.L.J. 155 reported in, State Bank of India v/s. Amal Kumar Sen and Ors., 1988 (2) C.H.N. 95 reported in and Narayan Chandra Dey v/s. State of West Bengal and Ors., 1988 (2) C.H.N. 361 reported in support of his contentions.;