Administrative Transfer Causing Revenue Loss Defies Court Process: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Ferry Ghat Handover

"The transfer made during pendency of the writ petition is an effort to circumvent the Court proceedings and amounts to defiance of the order of the Court and therefore, cannot be sustained." Calcutta High Court, in a significant ruling, held that an administrative transfer of public property effected to circumvent ongoing litigation, especially one resulting in significant revenue loss to the State exchequer, is legally unsustainable.

A single-judge bench of Justice Suvra Ghosh observed that when authorities hastily transfer public assets upon receiving notice of a legal challenge, such acts amount to a direct defiance of the court and an attempt to overreach judicial proceedings.

The dispute arose when the Zilla Parishad, South 24 Parganas, transferred the Ramchandrakhali ferry ghat to the local Panchayat Samity shortly after receiving notice of a writ petition that sought a fresh tender process. While three other ferry ghats similarly transferred were subsequently reverted to the Zilla Parishad, the Ramchandrakhali ghat was withheld on the pretext of the pending litigation. The Panchayat Samity subsequently leased the property to a third party at a considerably reduced rent, prompting the petitioner to challenge the legality of the transfer.

The primary question before the court was whether the administrative transfer of the ferry ghat, hurriedly effected after the receipt of a writ petition notice, amounted to an impermissible attempt to overreach the court. The court was also called upon to determine if the subsequent lease granted by the Panchayat Samity, which resulted in a substantial revenue loss to the State exchequer, possessed any legal validity.

Revenue Loss Belies "Small Ferry Ghat" Classification

The court strongly rejected the Zilla Parishad's justification that the property was transferred merely because it was a small ferry ghat. Taking note of the substantial lease amount of Rs. 17,96,850 associated with the Ramchandrakhali ghat, the bench contrasted it with another genuinely small ghat carrying a lease of only Rs. 72,000. The court noted that the transfer allowed the Panchayat Samity to lease out the property at a highly reduced rate. Emphasising the financial detriment, the bench highlighted that the property was leased at a "much lower lease rent than could be fetched by the Zilla Parishad."

"The ferry ghat has been leased out by the Panchayat Samity at a much lower lease rent than could be fetched by the Zilla Parishad."

Transfer To Circumvent Litigation Is Defiance Of Court

Addressing the timing of the handover, the court observed that the initial transfer resolution was fructified only after the Zilla Parishad received formal notice of the writ petition. The bench questioned the logic of withholding the return of this specific ferry ghat on the pretext of pending litigation, noting that the initial transfer itself occurred while the petition was pending. Relying on the division bench judgment in Ranjit Kumar Halder v. State of West Bengal, the court sternly condemned administrative actions rushed through to bypass impending judicial scrutiny.

Principle Against Overreaching The Court

Expanding on the doctrine against overreaching, the bench underscored that a respondent cannot hurriedly alter the status quo to steal a march over an opponent after receiving notice of an impending injunction. The court drew persuasive value from the historical English Chancery Division ruling in Daniel v. Ferguson, reiterating that acts done in anticipation of judicial intervention to defeat the court's process must be set aside. The bench unequivocally declared that the administrative transfer, orchestrated under such dubious circumstances, was completely devoid of legal sanction.

"The transfer being devoid of any legal sanction, all subsequent acts pursuant thereto including the lease granted to the added respondent are illegal and cannot continue."

Subsequent Leases Voided And Fresh Tender Ordered

Consequently, the court struck down the transfer and nullified the lease subsequently granted to the added respondent by the Panchayat Samity. The bench directed the Additional District Magistrate of the Zilla Parishad to reclaim the ferry ghat within two weeks. Furthermore, the court mandated that a fresh tender be floated within one week thereafter, strictly in accordance with the State Transport Department's Jaladhara scheme notification dated January 28, 2020. The current operator was permitted to continue operations only until the fresh tender notice is officially published.

The writ petition was disposed of with the categorical setting aside of the Ramchandrakhali ferry ghat's transfer. This judgment establishes a firm precedent that administrative bodies cannot execute procedural property transfers to cause revenue loss to the State exchequer while simultaneously attempting to outmaneuver active constitutional litigation.

Date of Decision: 10 April 2026