Judgment Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J. This writ petition is directed against an order passed by the West Bengal Land Reforms & Tenancy Tribunal, 1st Bench, on 8th April, 2014 in tribunal application being O.A. 861 of 2014 (LRTT) at the instance of the writ petitioners who were applicants before the Learned Tribunal. Let us consider the merit of the instant writ petition in the facts of the instant case. The applicants’ society was the settlee in respect of Jiaganj Azimganj Sadar Ferry Ghat Service for the year 1420 B.S. Before expiry of the lease term on 31st Chaitra, 1420 B.S, the writ petitioners/applicants filed an application before the District Land & Land Reforms Officer, Murshidabad, on 29th January, 2014 praying for settlement of the aforesaid ferry service in their favour as per provision contained in Rule 281 of the West Bengal Land & Land Reforms Manual, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as the said manual) during the year 1421 B.S. The authority concerned, without considering the petitioner’s said application, issued one notice on 13th February, 2014 inviting tender from the intending boatmen’s cooperative society/partnership concern stating therein that the said ferry service will be settled on 4th March, 2014 subject to the terms and conditions as mentioned in the said auction notice. Pursuant to such notice inviting tender, the writ petitioners herein, along with two other cooperative societies, including the private respondent no. 5 herein, participated in the said tender process by offering their bid in sealed cover. Immediately after coming to know that no other boatmen’s cooperative society and/or partnership concern, excepting petitioners’ cooperative society participated in the said tender process, the petitioners herein on the very day of holding such tender, wrote a letter to the concerned District Land & Land Reforms Officer, Murshidabad, inviting him to select the petitioners’ cooperative society for grant of such settlement for the next three years as the petitioners’ society was the only boatmen’s cooperative society operating ferry service in the said locality. The concerned authority, even without considering the said application submitted on 3rd March, 2014, ultimately selected the respondent no. 5 cooperative society for grant of such settlement for one year. The petitioners, thus, felt aggrieved. Hence, they filed a tribunal application being O.A. 861 of 2014 (LRTT) for challenging the said action of the concerned District Land & Land Reforms Officer before the West Bengal Land Reforms & Tenancy Tribunal. 5 cooperative society for grant of such settlement for one year. The petitioners, thus, felt aggrieved. Hence, they filed a tribunal application being O.A. 861 of 2014 (LRTT) for challenging the said action of the concerned District Land & Land Reforms Officer before the West Bengal Land Reforms & Tenancy Tribunal. The Learned Tribunal after considering the respective contention of the parties disposed of the petitioners’ said application on 8th April, 2014 by dismissing it and holding, inter alia, that the concerned authority did not commit any illegality in selecting the respondent no. 5 as according to the Learned Tribunal, the respondent no. 5 being the boatmen’s cooperative society, its eligibility to participate in the said tender process, cannot be overlooked. For coming to the conclusion that the respondent no. 5 is a boatmen’s cooperative society, the Learned Tribunal considered the bye-laws of the society wherein it was mentioned that ‘Ghat Parapar’, i.e. to provide ferry service is one of the activities of the said cooperative society amongst other multifarious activities. The Learned Tribunal also held that when the concerned authority decided to float tender for selection of a suitable co-operative society for running the said ferry service and issued notice inviting tender from willing candidates, it will be presumed that the petitioners’ application for settlement of ferry service for the year 1421 B.S. by following the provision contained in Rule 281 of the said Rules, and without floating any tender, was deemed to have been rejected. As such, the Learned Tribunal held that even though the decision for rejection of the petitioners’ prayer for settlement of the ferry service with them for the year 1421 B.S. was not communicated to the petitioners, but such lapse on the part of the State authority cannot vitiate the process of settlement. Holding as such, the Learned Tribunal rejected the petitioners’ said tribunal application. The legality and/or correctness of the said order of the Learned Tribunal is under challenge before us in this writ petition. In the notice inviting tender it was mentioned that such ferry service will be settled by following the provisions contained in Rule 281 of the said Manual. Let us first of all consider the law relating to settlement of ferries as laid down under the West Bengal Land and Land Reforms Manual, 1991 as it stood prior to its amendment in 2002. Let us first of all consider the law relating to settlement of ferries as laid down under the West Bengal Land and Land Reforms Manual, 1991 as it stood prior to its amendment in 2002. The relevant part of the said provision which was there in the Manual prior to 2002 are set out hereunder :- “281. ……………………………………………… (ii) Procedure for settlement of ferries. – Ferries should be settled by the District Land and Land Reforms Officer by public auction to be held at least three months before the date from which the settlement is to have effect. Public auction shall remain restricted among cooperative societies or partnership firms as conceived in rule 266A.” For sake of convenience of understanding Rule 266A is also set out hereunder :- “266A. In keeping with the declared policy of the State Government to generate maximum self-employment through optimum use of resources at its disposal, it is decided that all kinds of assets excepting water area, viz. fisheries, tank-fisheries, tank etc. as stated in the preceding rule will be settled with cooperative societies or partnership firms of the local educated unemployed youth, such societies or firms forming with minimum three(3) members at least two of whom should belong to the family living Below Poverty Line (BPL) and one (1) may be the youth of a Non-Below Poverty Line (Non-BPL). In all cases the ratio of BPL and Non-BPL youths should be approximately at 2:1 ratio. It will be better appreciated if the ratio is made more skewed in favour of youths coming from BPL families. At least thirty (30) per cent members of such cooperative society or partnership firm should have minimum academic qualification of madhyamik or equivalent. Provided that in case adequate number of local unemployed youths belonging to the family living Below Poverty Line are not available or do not forthcome, youths Double Below Poverty Line (DBPL), may be allowed to be members of such cooperative society or partnership firm to meet the deficit of youths of BPL group. Efforts should, however, always be made to find out the youths living Below Poverty Line and the youths Double Below Poverty Line should only second in the priority. Efforts should, however, always be made to find out the youths living Below Poverty Line and the youths Double Below Poverty Line should only second in the priority. Explanation.- Persons whose family is below Rs.15,976 per annum in rural areas and Rs.21,206 per annum in urban areas shall be considered to be Below Poverty Line (BPL), and those with family income below Rs.31,952 per annum in rural areas and Rs.42,412 per annum in urban areas respectively shall be considered to be Double Below Poverty Line (DBPL). The definition so given in this Explanation is subject to changes to be effected from time to time by the Panchyat and Rural Development Department. The District Land and Land Reforms Officer will accept the changes as and when such changes are made by the Panchyat and Rural Development Department”. The said provision thus provided that (i) ferry service will be settled by public auction; (ii) such public auction should be held at least three months before the date from which the settlement is to have effect and (iii) the cooperative societies or the partnership firms as conceived in Rule 266A are eligible to participate in the auction. Fact remains that all the three participants in the tender process were cooperative societies registered under the Co-operative Societies Act. As such, their eligibility under the unamended Rules cannot be disputed. However, the provision contained in Rule 281(iii) was amended in the year 2002. The said provision of Rule 281(iii) was substituted with the following provision :- “Preference should be given for settlement of ferries with local Boatmen’s Co-operative Society or partnership concern formed of local boatman and hereditary patni. As such, their eligibility under the unamended Rules cannot be disputed. However, the provision contained in Rule 281(iii) was amended in the year 2002. The said provision of Rule 281(iii) was substituted with the following provision :- “Preference should be given for settlement of ferries with local Boatmen’s Co-operative Society or partnership concern formed of local boatman and hereditary patni. If there is only one such co-operative society or partnership concern in the locality, settlement shall be made with such co-operative society or partnership concern on the basis of economic rent to be determined by the Collector on the basis of 25% of the average of net income of preceding three years and in such event no tender needs be invited.” The substituted provision as quoted above was in force at the time when the petitioners applied for settlement of such ferry service with them for the year 1421 B.S. In view of such substituted provision, we feel that the concerned authority before issuing notice inviting tenders should have ascertained as to whether any other local boatmen’s co-operative society or partnership concern formed of local boatman and hereditary patni, save and except the petitioner’s Co-operative Society is available in the locality. If after holding an enquiry in this regard, the concerned authority could have satisfied itself that there were more than one such co-operative society and/or partnership concern in the locality, then the concerned authority could have taken a decision for floating tender for selection of suitable candidate for settlement of such ferry service with it. This has not been done in the instant case. Be that as it may, even without making this exercise, the concerned authority floated the tender process by issuing notice inviting tender. Admittedly the petitioner no.1 is a Boatmen Co-operative Society, operating in the locality. They were given settlement with the said ferry service in the last year i.e. 1420 B.S. They claimed settlement of the ferry service as per the substituted provision of Rule 281(iii) of the said Rules. When such a claim was raised by a boatmen cooperative society operating in the locality, the concerned authority, in our view, ought to have examined the eligibility of the other two tenderers who intended to participate in the said tender process before allowing them to participate in the tender process. When such a claim was raised by a boatmen cooperative society operating in the locality, the concerned authority, in our view, ought to have examined the eligibility of the other two tenderers who intended to participate in the said tender process before allowing them to participate in the tender process. Here is the case where we find that this part of the exercise has also not been done by the concerned authority. On the contrary, the concerned authority permitted the other two tenderers to participate in the tender process though they were not boatmen’s co-operative society and/or partnership concern formed of local boatmen and hereditary patni. Fact remains that one of the tenderers which quoted the lowest bid in the tender process was not selected by the concerned authority and as such the said tenderer has already withdrawn the security money from the concerned authority. Thus the said tenderer has accepted the decision of the concerned authority. Dispute arose as the writ petitioners herein challenged the selection of the private respondent herein for such settlement of ferry service as according to the writ petitioners, the respondent no.5 was ineligible to participate in the said tender as the said co-operative society is neither a local boatmen co-operative society nor it was a partnership concern formed of local boatman and hereditary patni. Some dispute cropped up with regard to the purpose for which such cooperative society of the respondent No.5 was formed as in one of the byelaws which was submitted by the said respondent, it was mentioned that one of the activities of the said Co-operative Society was “Ghat Parapar” i.e. to provide ferry service while in the other two byelaws; –one produced by the State-respondents and the other produced by the writ petitioners, the said activity of providing ferry service i.e. “Ghat Parapar” was not mentioned therein. The Learned Tribunal after considering the byelaws which was submitted by the private respondent no.5 herein, came to the conclusion that the said Cooperative Society was a society formed with the boatmen of the said locality as the object for which it was formed, was to provide ferry service. We have examined all the three byelaws which were submitted before us by the respective parties. We find that in the byelaws which was submitted by the respondent no.5, “Ghat Parapar” is mentioned as one of its activities amongst various multifarious activities. We have examined all the three byelaws which were submitted before us by the respective parties. We find that in the byelaws which was submitted by the respondent no.5, “Ghat Parapar” is mentioned as one of its activities amongst various multifarious activities. However, such activity i.e. “Ghat Parapar” for providing ferry service is not mentioned in the other two byelaws which were submitted before us. In our view, even without entering into this part of the controversy as to which one, out of those two sets of byelaws is correct and genuine, the present dispute, in our view, can be resolved with reference to the members who formed such co-operative society. On consideration of the byelaws and the particular clause relating to its membership, we are unable to find out as to whether the said Co-operative society was formed with the local boatmen or not. We invited Mr. Basu, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent no.5 to satisfy us from the byelaws and/or any other documents in the custody of his client that the respondent no.5 Co-operative Society was formed with the local boatmen. Mr. Basu failed to satisfy us in this regard. On the contrary, on examination of the byelaws of the petitioners’ Society, we find that the said Co-operative Society was formed with the local boatmen. Even the membership of the said Co-operative Society is restricted to the person in the locality carrying on vocation of “Mazhi” (boatman) or any other person employed by the society in operating the transport system or any person engaged in running the workshop of the society of the canteen etc. Thus we have no hesitation to hold that apart from the petitioner Cooperative Society, no other boatmen’s co-operative society participated in the said tender process. Since none of the other two tenderers was eligible to participate in the tender process, the concerned authority, in our view, ought to have eliminated them from the very inception by not allowing them to participate in the tender process. Having regard to the fact that no other boatmen co-operative society, save and except the petitioner was before the concerned authority, the concerned authority ought to have selected the petitioner for grant of such settlement for the year 1421 B.S. by following the substituted provision of Rule 281(iii) of the said Rules. Mr. Having regard to the fact that no other boatmen co-operative society, save and except the petitioner was before the concerned authority, the concerned authority ought to have selected the petitioner for grant of such settlement for the year 1421 B.S. by following the substituted provision of Rule 281(iii) of the said Rules. Mr. Basu submits that since the petitioner participated in the tender process, it cannot challenge the selection process after being unsuccessful in the tender process. In support of such submission, Mr. Basu has also relied upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Madan Lal & Ors. Vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors. reported in AIR 1995 SC 1088 . He has referred to paragraph 8 of the said decision to support his above contention. It was held in the said decision that whenever a candidate appeared at the examination without protest and when he found that he would not succeed in the examination, he filed a petition challenging the said examination, the High Court should not have granted any relief to such candidate. The principle as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said decision, in our considered view, has no application in the present case as here we find that even on the very day of holding such tender, the petitioner herein submitted an application before the concerned District Land and Land Reforms Officer intimating him that the petitioner being the only local boatmen’s cooperative society is entitled to get such settlement as per Rule 281 of the said Rules. Even this was not taken into consideration by the concerned authority before taking the ultimate decision for grant of such settlement with the private respondent no.5 which in our considered view being an ineligible candidate ought to have been eliminated at the very inception of the tender process by the concerned authority. Thus we hold that the entire tender process is vitiated. The concerned authority while selecting the private respondent no.5 did not act in terms of the provision contained in Rule 281 of the said Rules. As such, we are unable to agree with the findings of the Learned Tribunal that the selection of the private respondent no.5 for grant of such settlement for the year 1421 B.S. by the concerned authority is not illegal. As such, we are unable to agree with the findings of the Learned Tribunal that the selection of the private respondent no.5 for grant of such settlement for the year 1421 B.S. by the concerned authority is not illegal. We thus not only set aside the order of the Learned Tribunal, but also cancel the settlement which was granted by the concerned authority in favour of the private respondent no.5 for the year 1421 B.S. The deposit, made by the said private respondent no.5 for obtaining such settlement, which we are informed, was invested in fixed deposit in terms of the earlier order of this Court should be refunded to the private respondent no.5 herein along with the interest accrued thereon within a fortnight from the date of communication of this order. However, we cannot direct the concerned authority to grant such settlement to the writ petitioner herein instantly, as it is submitted by Mr. De, learned advocate appearing for the State-respondents that his client is not sure as to whether any other local boatmen’s society is operating in the locality i.e. within the block concerned or not. Taking note of such submission of Mr. De, we direct the concerned authority to first ascertain as to whether apart from the writ petitioner there is any other boatmen’s co-operative society and/or partnership concern formed of local boatmen and hereditary patni operating in the locality i.e. within the concerned Block or not, and if after holding such enquiry, it is found that apart from the writ petitioner there is no other boatmen’s society and/or partnership concern formed of local boatmen and hereditary patni which is eligible to participate in the tender as per the substituted provision of Rule 281 (iii) of the said Rules, then the concerned authority will settle the said ferry service to the writ petitioner for the year 1421 BS on acceptance of the economic rent in terms of the provision contained in Rule 281 of the said Rules. It is further clarified that in the event it is found that apart from the writ petitioners, there is any one or more local boatmen’s co-operative society or partnership concern formed of local boatmen and hereditary patni, eligible to participate in the tender as per the provision contained in Rule 281 of the said Rules, then such settlement will be given after holding tender in accordance with the provision contained in Rule 281 of the said Rules. This exercise should be completed within one month from the date of communication of this order and during the interim period, the ferry service may be allowed to be continued either by the concerned authority itself or by any other suitable agency to be appointed by the concerned authority or by allowing the writ petitioners to continue during the interim period subject to payment of economic rent to be determined by the Collector as per Rule 281(iii) of the said Rules. We are informed by Mr. De that the writ petitioner is still continuing the said ferry service in terms of the interim order passed by this Court. We thus make it clear that the concerned authority will intimate the petitioners as to whether the petitioners will be allowed to continue the said ferry service during the interim period or not, and in the event the concerned authority decides not to allow the petitioners to continue the said ferry service during the interim period, the petitioners will discontinue the ferry service on demand from the concerned authority immediately. The concerned authority is, however, free to realise the economic rent which is payable by the petitioners as per Rule 281(iii) of the said Rules for the period during which the petitioners continued such ferry service after expiry of their lease period. In the event it is found that the amount which was deposited by the petitioners for enjoying the interim order is not sufficient to satisfy the economic rent which is payable by the petitioners during the said excess period, the concerned authority will realise the same from the petitioners. On the contrary, if it is found that the deposit exceeds the economic rent which is payable by the petitioners for such excess period, the concerned authority will refund such excess payment to the petitioners. Such exercise should also be done within a week from date from the date of communication of this order. On the contrary, if it is found that the deposit exceeds the economic rent which is payable by the petitioners for such excess period, the concerned authority will refund such excess payment to the petitioners. Such exercise should also be done within a week from date from the date of communication of this order. The writ petition is thus allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The original record which was submitted by Mr. De earlier is returned to him. Let the original byelaws which was submitted by Mr. Basu be returned to his learned advocate-on-record subject to furnishing a true photo copy of the same for keeping it on record. The writ petition is, thus, disposed of. I agree : Ishan Chandra Das, J.