JUDGMENT 1. TEHATTA-LL, Panchayat Samity in the District of Nadia invited tenders from the intending bidders in a public auction for leasing out ferry service for the period August 15, 2008 to April 14, 2010. Notice inviting tender was published on August 5, 2008. The respondent No. 1 participated in the tender process along with other intending bidders and became successful in obtaining lease at for a sum of Rs. 12 lakhs payable to the panchayat Samity as license fee for such lease. The respondent No. 1 however, was not in a position to deposit the money within the stipulated period. Hence, the process was cancelled. However, in course of hearing before us Mr. Sumitro Dasgupta learned Counsel appearing for the State-respondents contended that the next highest offerer was also not in a position to deposit the sum. Fact remains, the process was cancelled. 2. ONE Zillar Rahaman filed a writ petition being W. P. No. 16860 (W) of 2008 inter alia praying for extension of his lease as he had been holding the lease for the earlier period. He obtained an order of injunction restraining his eviction. The respondent contended that he was keeping an eye over the matter as he was eager to participate in the next tender process. On September 17, 2008 Zillar was evicted and appellant was given possession. The respondent No. 1 came to know that a surreptitious tender process was had behind his back where the appellant was successful in obtaining a lease for a sum of Rs. 5. 30 lakhs. Pertinent to note, the reserve price was fixed for Rs. 4. 7 lakhs. He came to know from zillar that Zillar was dispossessed as interim protection granted to him was not extended by the learned Single Judge in his writ proceeding. The respondent No. 1 filed a writ petition challenging the second tender process principally on the ground that it was not conducted by giving wide publicity. The respondent No. 1 contended that he did not see any notice hung up on the notice board of the Panchayat Samity and as such he was prevented from sufficient cause in participating in the said tender process. The writ petition was heard by the learned Single Judge on December, 23 of 2008. His Lordship held that the auction notice was not properly published. His Lordship quashed the entire process. 3. The writ petition was heard by the learned Single Judge on December, 23 of 2008. His Lordship held that the auction notice was not properly published. His Lordship quashed the entire process. 3. BEING aggrieved, appellant preferred the instant appeal. It is however, significant to note that despite service of notice the appellant did not chose to appear before Your Lordship. 4. WHEN the appeal was initially heard by us we directed records to be produced by the Panchayat Samity. We also directed the concerned block Development Officer who is also ex-officio Executive Officer of the panchayat Samity to be present along with the Sabadhipati of the panchayat Samity. Both of them appeared along with records. We heard the appeal in their presence Mr. Ashok Chakraborty, learned Senior Counsel being assisted by Mr. Kamalesh Bhattacharya, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant raised two principal grounds while assailing the order of the impugned herein: - (1) Learned Single Judge should not have disposed of the writ petition on the first day without calling for affidavits. No opportunity was given to the appellant to ventilate his grievance before His Lordship. (2) As per the appropriate rules Ferry Services could be leased out only through public auction which was duly held. Hence, the learned Single Judge should not have quashed the entire process. 5. WHILE elaborating his argument Mr. Chakraborty contended that had there been any direction for filing affidavit the appellant could have placed all facts through affidavit. Such opportunity was not given to him. Mr. Chakraborty was however not able to assign any plausible reason why the appellant was not present at the time of hearing before the learned single Judge. Mr. Chakraborty further contended that public auction did not mean wide publicity through media. Following the age old practice the notice was hung up at the conspicuous places of the locality including the notice Board of the Panchayat Samity. Hence, the learned Single Judge should not have quashed the entire process. 6. TO support his contention Mr. Chakraborty relied on the following decisions: - (1) 2008 Volume 1 Calcutta High Court Notes page 41 (Gangadhar Dutta v. State of West Bengal and Ors.), (2) 2008 Volume 2 Calcutta High Court Notes page 661 (Radha giri Pradhan v. State of West Bengal and Ors.), (3) 2008 Volume 3 Calcutta High Court Notes page 737 (Himangshu Das and Ors. Chakraborty relied on the following decisions: - (1) 2008 Volume 1 Calcutta High Court Notes page 41 (Gangadhar Dutta v. State of West Bengal and Ors.), (2) 2008 Volume 2 Calcutta High Court Notes page 661 (Radha giri Pradhan v. State of West Bengal and Ors.), (3) 2008 Volume 3 Calcutta High Court Notes page 737 (Himangshu Das and Ors. v. State of West Bengal and Ors.), (4) Volume 63 Calcutta Weekly Notes page 158 (Narendra prasad Singh v. State of West Bengal and Ors. ). Mr. Chakraborty also relied upon Section 9 of The Bengal Ferries act, 1885, Section 110 of The West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973 and regulation 281 of The Land Reforms Mannual, 1991 in support of his contention that ferry could only be leased out through public auction and not by public advertisement. 7. OPPOSING the appeal Mr. Sadananda Ganguly, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 contended that in the first tender process he was successful in getting the lease for Rs. 12 lakhs. He could not deposit the entire money. He, however, tendered Rs. 8 lakhs and odd in terms of an earlier order of this Court. Despite such fact the ferry was settled at a much lesser sum of Rs. 5. 30 lakhs without appropriate public notice being given. Mr. Ganguly contended that the learned Single Judge rightly quashed the entire process asking the Panchayat Samity to start the process afresh by making wide publicity. Mr. Chakraborty contended that in absence of appropriate notice he was prevented from sufficient cause to participate in the selection process which would amount to violation of principles of natural justice as guaranteed by the Constitution under Articles 14 and 19 (1) (g) thereof. 8. LEARNED Counsel appearing for the Panchayat Samity contended that since the respondent No. 1 could not deposit the lease amount the panchayat Samity was compelled to cancel the first tender process and after due notice to all concerned and affixing copy of the same on the notice Board of the Panchayat Samity following the earlier practice held the second tender process. Hence the learned Judge should not have quashed the process causing inconvenience to general public. Mr. Sumitro Dasgupta appearing for the State-respondent contended that the respondent No. 1 did not come in clean hand. Hence the learned Judge should not have quashed the process causing inconvenience to general public. Mr. Sumitro Dasgupta appearing for the State-respondent contended that the respondent No. 1 did not come in clean hand. He participated in the tender process and then failed and neglected to deposit the amount Hence at his instance the learned Single Judge should not have quashed the entire process. 9. WE have considered the rival contentions. We are unable to appreciate the grounds taken by the appellant as canvassed by Mr. Chakraborty referred to above. The writ petition was moved upon notice to the appellant. He chose not to appear in the matter. Hence he was not entitled to raise the plea that no opportunity had been given to him by the learned Single Judge. On perusal order of the learned Single Judge it appears that the State could not satisfy His Lordship with regard to publicity of the tender process. In such event there was no option before the learned single Judge but to quash the entire process and direct the Panchayat samity to proceed afresh. It is now an admitted fact that no wide publicity was made although the Panchayat Samity contended that the notice had been hung up in their Notice Board. In our considered view, such notice was not appropriate considering the amount involved in the tender process. In our view, at least one insertion in any Bengali Newspaper or Local newspaper could have been published so that all intending bidders could participate in the tender process which would inure to the benefit of the public exchequer. 10. THREE Division Bench decisions cited by Mr. Chakraborty all relate to sufficient opportunity of hearing. In the case of Gangadhar Dutta (supra) on a plain reading of the said decision it appears that the learned Single Judge by a cryptic order disposed of the writ petition without assigning any reason. The Division bench observed that it was disposed of on the first day at the ad interim stage. The respondent did not get any opportunity to ventilate their grievance. The Division Bench also considered the submission of the learned Counsel appearing for the State who contended before the Division bench that although he was present before the learned Single Judge and made submissions his submissions were not recorded. 11. The respondent did not get any opportunity to ventilate their grievance. The Division Bench also considered the submission of the learned Counsel appearing for the State who contended before the Division bench that although he was present before the learned Single Judge and made submissions his submissions were not recorded. 11. IN the case of Radha Giri (supra) the Division Bench also set aside a cryptic order passed by the learned Single Judge without assigning any reason disposing of the writ petition. The Division Bench here observed that the order finally disposing of a writ petition must be a speaking order and such order can only be passed after hearing all the affected parties. 12. IN the case of Himangshu Das (supra) the Division Bench in an identical situation set aside the order of the learned Single Judge. The division Bench also put emphasis on the fact that respondent were not even served before the writ petition had been finally disposed of. The division Bench observed that the respondent did not get opportunity to contest the said proceeding. Upon considering facts involved in all the three decisions we are unable to apply the ratio in the instance case. Here the learned Single judge disposed of the writ petition by assigning reason thereof. His lordship heard all the parties except the appellant who chose not to appear before His Lordship despite notice being served upon him. The lease was for a writ period of 18 months. Out of 18 months 4 months had already passed. The appearing respondents did not pray for direction for filing affidavits. The appearing respondents also did not feel aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge as they accepted the said order without preferring any appeal thereof. We are unable to apply ratio of any of the three decisions discussed above in the present case. 13. IN the case of Narendra Prasad Singh (supra) the learned Single judge considered the provisions of Bengal Ferries Act, 1885 and held that the leasing could be done only through public auction. 14. PUBLIC auction means an auction giving opportunity to the members of the public to participate. The public interested to participate could only be given opportunity by way of wide publicity. One of such accepted method is publicity through print media. By advancement of science it can now also be published through electronic media. 14. PUBLIC auction means an auction giving opportunity to the members of the public to participate. The public interested to participate could only be given opportunity by way of wide publicity. One of such accepted method is publicity through print media. By advancement of science it can now also be published through electronic media. Affixing notice only on the Notice board of the Panchayat Samity, in our view, is not sufficient notice specially when the Panchayat Samity was dealing with public exchequer and considering a tender process with reserve price of Rs. 4.7 lakhs where the authority could get an offer up to Rs. 12 lakhs. The matter can be viewed from another angle. Admittedly, the lease amount would be deposited in public fund for the benefit of the public exchequer. In the first tender process the bid went up to rs. 12 lakhs. How could the said lease be finalised at Rs. 5. 3 lakhs in a subsequent process, is not known to us, rather it is difficult for us to presume that public was duly intimated. The Dictionary meaning of the word "publicity" is "attracting notice or attention through the media. The word "publicise" means "make widely known". According to the Dictionary, "auction" means a "public sale in which case property to be sold to the highest bidder". Until and unless appropriate publicity is made the public auction would be a mockery as the bona fide bidders would be prevented from taking part in such auction which would be rendering public loss being a loss to the public exchequer. 15. IT is true that the conduct of the respondent No. 1 is deplorable. He offered for the lease for Rs. 12 lakhs without arranging the fund. He knew that he was to deposit the said sum within the stipulated period. Even then he participated in the auction and ultimately became successful being accepted as the highest bidder. We, however, wish to look at the problem from a different angle. If we allow the appeal by taking a rigid view to the extent that writ petitioner/respondent No. 1 did not approach the learned Single Judge in clean hand we would be doing injustice to the public cause. It might be true that the respondent No. 1 was aware of the second tender process. If we allow the appeal by taking a rigid view to the extent that writ petitioner/respondent No. 1 did not approach the learned Single Judge in clean hand we would be doing injustice to the public cause. It might be true that the respondent No. 1 was aware of the second tender process. It would be difficult for us to accept his contention that being unsuccessful in depositing the money in the tender process held in August, 2008 he did not enquire of the matter and wait till September 17, 2008 when the earlier lessee was dispossessed. We, however, wish to look at this problem in a broader aspect. Rightly or wrongly the tender amount reached up to Rs. 12 lakhs. In no stretch of imagination the panchayat Samity could settle it at Rs. 5. 30 lakhs within a few months. We are unable to appreciate, how the concerned Block Development officer could put his seal of approval to such a process which is not at all transparent. The learned Single Judge rightly interfered and quashed the process. We do not find any scope of interference. In course of hearing we enquired from Mr. Chakraborty whether his client was prepared to pay Rs. 12 lakh for the lease. The answer promptly came in the negative. 16. THE appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Urgent xerox certified copy would be given to the parties, if applied for.