( 1 ) THIS application, for granting stay of the judgment and order dated 4th of april, 2007, has arisen in connection with an appeal preferred against the same judgment by the appellant. ( 2 ) THE learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition quashing the decision taken by the Zilla Parishad, 24-Parganas South and further directed to hold fresh auction for settlement of ferry service. The judgment and order were passed on a writ petition filed by the respondent No. 1 who alleged before the learned Trial Judge that despite having pre-requisite qualification, he was not allowed to participate in the auction exercised for setting the ferry service by the Zilla Parishad. The learned Trial Judge has upheld the contention of the writ petitioner and found that the writ petitioner had fulfilled all the conditions but he was not allowed to participate, thus the entire auction exercise was vitiated with illegalities. It is to be noted, in the auction, the appellant before us, participated and his bid was accepted by the Zilla Parishad. Originally the appellant before us was not made a party though his right was sought to be affected by filing of the writ petition. However, this defect was cured by the court on an application being made by the applicant before the learned Trial judge for adding the applicant as a party respondent. ( 3 ) AFTER hearing the parties, the learned Single Judge found that the appellant's bid was also not acceptable and, therefore, his bid was also set aside and fresh auction was directed. ( 4 ) MR. Bandopadhyay, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, contends that the learned Trial Judge should not have set aside the auction held on the plea of non-participation of the writ petitioner. According to him, the writ petitioner did not qualify itself as no receipt for deposit of earnest money was produced which was one of the pre-conditions. It will appear from the writ petition as well as affidavit of the Zilla Parishad, actually no deposit was made lawfully and no receipt was granted. According to him, under the provision of rule 5 of the West Bengal Panchayat (ZP and PS) Accounts and Finance Rules, 2003 all monies are to be received following a particular method and a receipt in a prescribed from has to be granted. According to him, under the provision of rule 5 of the West Bengal Panchayat (ZP and PS) Accounts and Finance Rules, 2003 all monies are to be received following a particular method and a receipt in a prescribed from has to be granted. He has also drawn our attention to the terms and conditions of the tender notice wherefrom it appears that at least one day before holding auction, requisite earnest money must be deposited and receipt in original must be produced at the time when the auction is held. He further submits that the finding of the learned Trial Judge, receipt of money by the authority by issuance of kachcha (informal) receipt is not sufficient compliance and the Zilla Parishad is estopped from contending otherwise, is not a correct finding and the same is not sustainable under the law. ( 5 ) MR. Bandopadhyay further contends, the issue before the learned Trial judge was whether the decision of the Zilla Parishad, disallowing the writ petitioner to participate in the auction, is correct or not. It was neither the issue nor the learned Trial Judge was supposed to decide as to whether participation of his client and acceptance of his client's bid is lawful or not. According to Mr. Bandopadhyay, the learned Trial Judge should not have decided this issue as no one had asked to do so. ( 6 ) MR. Bandopadhyay further submits that his client has not only deposited the earnest money but also got formal receipt as required, in accordance with law and the Rules of the Zilla Parishad, which has taken a decision to settle the ferry service in favour of his client by issuing necessary notice. The aforesaid notice was not challenged before the learned Trial Judge. ( 7 ) MR. Ghosh, learned Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner, submits that his client, in good faith, had deposited the necessary earnest money with the Zilla Parishad which in turn has granted, under the longstanding practice and procedure, kachcha (informal) receipt. The said kachcha receipt was produced at the time of auction. However, the Zilla Parishad, in spite of receiving the money and issuing kachcha receipt, did not allow his client to participate. It is an omission and/or fault on the part of the Zilla Parishad and his client, being a bona fide intending participant, is not at fault. The said kachcha receipt was produced at the time of auction. However, the Zilla Parishad, in spite of receiving the money and issuing kachcha receipt, did not allow his client to participate. It is an omission and/or fault on the part of the Zilla Parishad and his client, being a bona fide intending participant, is not at fault. The Zilla Parishad should have issued pucca receipt then and there. According to him, findings of the learned Trial Judge, in this regard in favour of his client, are not at all wrong. ( 8 ) IN any event, Mr. Ghosh submits that the appellant had also deposited the earnest money in the same manner and he also was granted kachcha receipt and on production of kachcha receipt the appellant had participated. Pucca receipt granted in favour of the appellant was issued only on the day of holding auction. Therefore, it shows, that receipt was not in accordance with law and therefore the deposit was also not made one day before the auction. Naturally, even pucca receipt is of no value nor does it qualify the appellant. ( 9 ) MR. Ghosh further submits that though in the provision of Rule 5 (3) of the West Bengal Panchayat (ZP and PS) Accounts and Finance Rules, 2003, the verb 'shall' has been used, the same should not be read as mandatory but should be read as directory. There are cases where in a particular phraseology the word 'shall' is used but the same should not always be read as mandatory but would depend on the situation and circumstances of a particular case and the word 'shall' could be read as directory as well. He further submits that if the entire object and purport of the rule is read, it would be clear that the whole purpose was to ensure deposit of money before the auction is held and to produce document in support of such deposition. Collecting pucca receipt, under the aforesaid rules, is required to. be complied with at any stage and it was not necessary at the stage, as contemplated in the rules as well as in the terms and conditions of the tender. In support of his contention, Mr. Ghosh has referred to a Supreme Court decision rendered in the case of the Vali Pero vs. Fernando lopez, 1989 (4) SCC 671 . ( 10 ) MR. In support of his contention, Mr. Ghosh has referred to a Supreme Court decision rendered in the case of the Vali Pero vs. Fernando lopez, 1989 (4) SCC 671 . ( 10 ) MR. Bhattacharya, learned Counsel for the Zilla Parishad, candidly submits that for a long time the Zilla Parishad has been following the practice and procedure of issuing kachcha receipts against any deposit being made in connection with any auction as a matter of course since the earnest monies deposited were to be returned to the unsuccessful bidders forthwith and granting kachcha receipts facilitates prompt action for returning of money to the unsuccessful bidders as soon as the auction is over. The procedure and formalities to be followed for granting pucca receipts create problem in the accounting system and cause delay in returning the money. According to Mr. Bhattacharya, deposit was made but the receipt granted is not lawful and regular one. ( 11 ) MR. Bhattacharya further submits that kachcha receipts were issued in both the cases but subsequently appellants collected the pucca receipt and the same was produced before the Zilla Parishad at the time of auction. ( 12 ) MR. Sanyal, learned Counsel led by Mr. Mukhopadhyay, appearing on behalf of respondent No. 12, support the submission of the writ petitioner/ respondent and he submits that fresh auction should be held and the order of the learned Trial Judge should not be stayed and the Zilla Parishad should be allowed to hold fresh auction. ( 13 ) WE have gone through the writ petition and also the judgment and order impugned. From the writ petition we find that grievance of the writ petitioner was that the Zilla Parishad wrongfully and illegally prevented it from participating in bidding though having requisite qualification. As such relief was claimed in the writ petition for a declaration for auction held on 5th January, 2007 by the respondents in respect of allotment of Ferry of Canning Dock Ghat against Tender Notice dated 28th November, 2006 is illegal, inoperative and bad in law and violative of natural justice and fair play. Further relief of issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus was asked for quashing the said auction held on 5th of January, 2007. ( 14 ) FROM the prayer portion it does not appear that the decision taken by the Zilla Parishad was under challenge. Further relief of issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus was asked for quashing the said auction held on 5th of January, 2007. ( 14 ) FROM the prayer portion it does not appear that the decision taken by the Zilla Parishad was under challenge. But it is immaterial if the auction itself is set aside. Obviously all subsequent decisions have to be quashed as a consequential measure. From the body of the writ petition nowhere we find that the participation of the appellant before us or decision in its favour was under challenge. The only grievance was that the writ petitioner, being a deserving candidate, was unduly prevented from participating from the bidding exercise. Therefore, the learned Trial Judge, according to us, as rightly pointed out by Mr. Bandopadhyay, has decided an extraneous issue which was not called for decision. The learned Trial Judge should have decided as to whether the decision of the Zilla Parishad disallowing the writ petitioner from participating in the auction is lawful or not. ( 15 ) LEARNED Trial Judge has held that the money deposited by the writ petitioner was valid and issuance of kachcha receipt is sufficient requirement in this case. Thereafter, the learned Trial Judge concluded by holding that the decision of the Zilla Parishad disallowing the writ petitioner was wholly wrongful and illegal. ( 16 ) IN our view whether such a finding by the learned Trial Judge is right or not has to be examined in the light of the terms and conditions as laid down in the tender notice. Ordinarily, fact finding recorded by the learned Trial Judge does not call for any interference by the Appellate Court. But if it appears on the face of the finding that the learned Trial Judge has misread the document patently and applied any law inappropriately while rendering such findings, obviously the Appellate Court has to examine the substance. It appears from the tender notice, deposit of the earnest money, one day before the date fixed for holding the auction, is a mandatory provision as the words mentioned in the tender notice in this regard is couched in such manner that no one can interpret anything otherwise than mandatory. It appears from the tender notice, deposit of the earnest money, one day before the date fixed for holding the auction, is a mandatory provision as the words mentioned in the tender notice in this regard is couched in such manner that no one can interpret anything otherwise than mandatory. The relevant portion of the terms and conditions of the said tender notice, after being translated into English, as they are in Bengali inscription, are set out hereunder: it thus appears that production of the receipt is mandatory on the date of holding the auction. It is also mandatory that earnest money has to be deposited at least one day before the date fixed for holding the auction. ( 17 ) IT seems to us that the earnest money was deposited by the writ petitioner and kachcha receipt was granted. Question is whether procurement of kachcha receipt and production thereof is sufficient in accordance with the terms and conditions of the tender notice or not. In other words, whether the production of pucca receipts is mandatory or not. ( 18 ) MR. Ghosh has drawn our attention to the Supreme Court decision, cited above. We are of the view that interpretation of a particular word or phraseology depends on the facts and circumstances of each and every case. The case before the Supreme Court relates to interpretation of certain provision of Original side Rules of this Court. The Supreme Court, while interpreting the rule held that signing of the deposition by witness before the learned Commissioner, appointed by the Court, is not a mandatory but directory provision though the rule was worded with the word 'shall'. The object of the said rule as understood by the Court was not to make it mandatory, as we have already quoted that the language of the notice, in this case, regarding production of formal receipt as a mandatory. Nowhere in the rule provides for issuance of kachcha receipt. Nothing has been produced before us as regards the decision of Zilla Parishad with regard to issuance of kachcha receipt in any situation. Nowhere in the rule provides for issuance of kachcha receipt. Nothing has been produced before us as regards the decision of Zilla Parishad with regard to issuance of kachcha receipt in any situation. Rule 5 sub-rule (3)of the West Bengal Panchayat (ZP and PS) Accounts and Finance Rules, 2003 provides as follows: " (3) In case money is tendered at the Headquarter of the Zilla Parishad or the Panchayat Samiti, the amount so tendered shall be received by the cashier or in his absence, by any other official acting as Cashier duly authorized by the Zilla Parishad or the Panchayat Samiti in this behalf, by granting receipt in Form 2. The receipts for any sum exceeding rupees five thousand received at the Headquarter shall be countersigned by the executive Officer or an officer authorized by him in this behalf. " ( 19 ) IT appears from the aforesaid rule that receipt has to be issued by the zilla Parishad in a prescribed manner set forth and has also been appended with the Rule, being Form No. 2. There must be some object of the legislature while prescribing such a method for depositing of earnest money and issuance of receipt therefor. When the statute requires any specific manner and method, the same is required to be followed. This cannot be deviated and this must be read as mandatory and not directory; otherwise the legislature could have simply mentioned that the money may be received and receipt may be granted without prescribing any method and mode for such deposition and granting of receipt. Thus, we are unable to accept the contention of Mr. Ghosh that issuance of kachcha (informal) receipt in this case is sufficient compliance. We also reject his contention that provision of rule 5 sub-rule (3) of the West Bengal Panchayat (ZP and PS) Accounts and Finance Rules, 2003 is a directory one. ( 20 ) NOW, coming to the question of the longstanding procedure allegedly adopted by the Zilla Parishad, with regard to issuance of kachcha receipts, we are of the view that the Zilla Parishad has no authority to flout the mandatory provision of law. ( 20 ) NOW, coming to the question of the longstanding procedure allegedly adopted by the Zilla Parishad, with regard to issuance of kachcha receipts, we are of the view that the Zilla Parishad has no authority to flout the mandatory provision of law. Zilla Parishad is a body formed under the statute; unlike an individual or a private body, a statutory body, cannot act at its whims or as it likes, it must act in accordance with the provisions of law whereas, a private individual has the liberty to act in any manner unless he is prevented and/or prohibited by the law. This proposition of law has been settled long time back by this Court. ( 21 ) WE, therefore, do not approve issuance of kachcha receipt though it may be convenient for working purpose, as contended by Mr. Bhattacharya, learned counsel for the Zilla Parishad. The bogey of inconvenience in following legal provision while receiving earnest money and returning the same to the unsuccessful candidates is not acceptable by this Court as we find that there cannot be any difficulty if the money is received and receipt, as per statute, is granted then and there. Similarly, after the deposit, the money is to be accounted in the register and thereafter the same is required to be deposited in the Bank immediately. If the money, so deposited, is to be returned to the unsuccessful bidders, the same can very well be refunded by way of issuance of cheque without any problem. The legislature has prescribed certain method in order to prevent possible misappropriation of the fund collected by the Zilla Parishad which is deposited in cash. Thus, we hold that the writ petitioner did not qualify for participating in the auction. While holding so, it may not be understood that we have upheld the legality and validity of the appellant's bid because this was not the issue before the learned Trial Judge nor do we propose to decide such an issue. An appellate Court exercises its power co-extensively with the learned trial Judge and the Appellate Court should not extend the scope of enquiry fallen before the learned Trial Judge. We just simply hold that the writ petitioner was rightly not allowed to participate in the bidding. An appellate Court exercises its power co-extensively with the learned trial Judge and the Appellate Court should not extend the scope of enquiry fallen before the learned Trial Judge. We just simply hold that the writ petitioner was rightly not allowed to participate in the bidding. However, the deposit so made by the writ petitioner was bona fide no doubt and it was the fault of the zilla Parishad which did not issue prescribed receipt then and there. It is not that the Zilla Parishad could not issue such statutory receipt and as it was issued in favour of the appellant on the date of auction. When it could be issued on the following day itself what prevented the Zilla Parishad from issuing such receipt in favour of the writ petitioner on the same day though the money was received. As such the writ petitioner is entitled to get refund of the entire money/with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of deposit. Such refund should be made within a period of seven days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. It appears from the tender notice that the Zilla parishad has every right to take a decision even after holding auction as to whether a bid should be accepted or not. Therefore, the Zilla Parishad shall take a decision, if not already taken, whether auction held earlier should be treated as valid or not. Our judgment and order is confined to the legality and validity of the decision of the Zilla Parishad as regards participation of the writ petitioner. The legality and validity as regards acceptance of the bid and subsequent decision are not decided by this Court and the same is kept at large. ( 22 ) THE application, being AST No. 254 of 2007, thus stands disposed of. ( 23 ) IN view of the aforesaid judgment and order we do not think any thing is left to be decided in the appeal. The appeal also stands disposed of treating the same as on day's list by consent of the parties. Application and Appeal disposed of.