JUDGMENT : Arindam Mukherjee, J. 1. The instant appeal is at the instance of respondent No. 7 in the writ petition being W.P. No. 12764 (W) of 2017, The Nabadwip Jalapath Paribahan Co-operative Society Ltd. vs. The State of West Bengal and Others. Records reveal that the appellant was initially not a party to the writ petition but had been added as respondent No. 7 therein by dint of the order dated 6th December, 2016. 2. Nabadwip Jalapath Paribahan Co-operative Society Limited, the writ petitioner (being the respondent no. 1 in the appeal) had been operating the Ferry Service between Nabadwip Ghat and Mayapur Ghat (also known as Hullor Ghat) and Nabadwip Ghat and Swarup Ganj. It filed the said writ petition, inter-alia challenging the authority of the Nadia Zilla Parishad in issuing the notice inviting tender bearing no. 2186(34)/NGP dated 22nd August, 2016 for fresh auction of such ferry as also the manner in which such tender was issued. The reliefs claimed by the writ petitioner in the said writ petition are as follows:- (a) An order dispensing with the formalities contemplated under Rule 26 of the Writ Rules. (b) A writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondent authorities, their men and/or agents and/or employees to forthwith withdraw/revoke/recall/rescind the Notice inviting tender bearing number 2186(34)/NGP dated 22.08.2016 issued in connection with settlement of Nabadwip Ferry Ghat being annexure “P-4” herein. (c) A writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondent authorities, their men and/or agents and/or employees to forthwith grant the lease of Nabadwip Ferry Ghat directly in favour of the petitioner society. (d) A writ in the nature of Certiorari commanding the respondents and/or their servants and/or their employees and/or their agents to certify and transmit to this Hon’ble Court all the records pertaining to the Notice inviting tender bearing number 2186(34)/NGP dated 22.08.2016 issued in connection with settlement of Nabadwip Ferry Ghat being annexure “P-4” herein and all other documents/notices issued in pursuance thereof so that conscionable justice may be administered by quashing the same. (e) Any other appropriate writ or writs. (f) Rule NISI in terms of prayers (a), (b), (c), (d), and (e) above. (e) Any other appropriate writ or writs. (f) Rule NISI in terms of prayers (a), (b), (c), (d), and (e) above. (g) An interim order restraining the respondent authorities from taking any steps and/or further steps in pursuance/furtherance of the Notice inviting tender bearing number 2186(34)/NGP dated 22.08.2016 issued in connection with settlement of Nabadwip Ferry Ghat being annexure “P-4” herein. (h) Interim order in terms of prayer (g) above till the disposal of the application. (i) Ad-interim order in terms of prayers (g) and (h) above. (j) Cost of and incidental to this application. (k) Such other or further order/orders and/or direction/directions as to your Lordships may deem fit and proper. 3. The said writ petition was finally heard and dismissed by the order impugned. However, the learned Single Judge allowed the Nabadwip Jalapath Paribahan Co-operative Society Limited to ply the ferry till 31st March, 2018. 4. The appellant (being the added respondent no. 7) has challenged the order impugned dated 1st December, 2017 and filed an application for stay therein praying for stay of operation of the impugned judgment. 5. The impugned order has been primarily challenged on three grounds. It has been firstly contended that one of the ferry Ghats, namely, Nabadwip Ferry Ghat is within the jurisdiction of the Nabadwip Municipality and as such under the provisions of section 1(2)(g) of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1973) read with the provisions of section 4 of the Bengal Ferries Act, 1885 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act of 1885) the ferry in question has vested in Nabadwip Municipality by virtue of the provisions of West Bengal Municipal Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1993).The said Act of 1973, therefore, has no manner of application with regard to the operation, control and management of the ferry service being the subject-matter of the tender issued by the Nadia Zilla Parishad. As a consequence thereof it is the Nabadwip Municipality and not the Nadia Zilla Parishad who is entitled to float the tender for auction of the said ferry. 6. The appellant’s next contention is that the ferry Ghat at Nabadwip is operated and maintained by the Nabadwip Municipality and as such it should be allowed to collect the tolls from such ferry service to meet the expenses for operating and maintaining the Nabadwip Ferry Ghat. 6. The appellant’s next contention is that the ferry Ghat at Nabadwip is operated and maintained by the Nabadwip Municipality and as such it should be allowed to collect the tolls from such ferry service to meet the expenses for operating and maintaining the Nabadwip Ferry Ghat. The Nabadwip Municipality, therefore, should be allowed to award the ferry to realise toll for mitigating such expenses and maintenance charge. The learned Advocate for the appellant to elucidate his argument further placed reliance on Sections 65, 75 and 93(1)(d)(e) of the Act of 1993, the provisions of Section 4 of the Act of 1885 and contended, since the ferry in question has vested upon the Nabadwip Municipality, the Nadia Zilla Parishad does not retain any control and jurisdiction over such ferry apart from the fact that the said Nadia Zilla Parishad does not incur any expenses for the operation and maintenance of the ferry ghat at Nabadwip. 7. By relying upon a memo bearing no. 343(80)/MA/C-10/2M-2/2016 dated 24th June, 2016 issued by the Joint Secretary to the Government of West Bengal the learned advocate for the appellant further contends that the Nabadwip Municipality by virtue of such memo is bound to maintain the Nabadwip Ferry Ghat but does not get any money to meet such operational cost and maintenance charges as the toll from such ferry service is realised by the Nadia Zilla Parishad. The Municipality therefore is burdened with the onerous task of maintaining the ferry ghat by incurring expenses from its fund without being able to realise anything for the same. 8. The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the State (respondents no. 3 & 4) while opposing the appeal submits that the ferry in question is not a public ferry under the provisions of Section 6 read with Section 5 and 7 of the Act of 1885. Since it is a private ferry, the control thereof had all along been with the Nadia Zilla Parishad. It is the Nadia Zilla Parishad who is vested with the authority to decide the manner of operation of the said ferry. Nadia Zilla Parishad is therefore, competent to auction the ferry. As such it was well within its jurisdiction to issue the tender to auction the ferry and no interference to the order impugned is called for. It is the Nadia Zilla Parishad who is vested with the authority to decide the manner of operation of the said ferry. Nadia Zilla Parishad is therefore, competent to auction the ferry. As such it was well within its jurisdiction to issue the tender to auction the ferry and no interference to the order impugned is called for. He further contends that Nadia Municipality is neither vested with nor can claim any right in respect of the ferry in question by virtue of the provisions of the Act of 1885 and Act of 1993. 9. The advocate appearing for Nadia Zilla Parishad (respondent no. 1) after adopting the submissions made on behalf of respondents no. 3 and 4 further contends that Nadia Zilla Parishad has all along been awarding the right to the ply the ferry in question and the appellant cannot question its jurisdiction and competence in doing so either in law or on facts. The other two points of the ferry, namely Mayapur Ghat (Hullor Ghat) and Swarup Ganj Ghat according to the said advocate are within the panchayat areas. Those two ghats are maintained and operated by the Nadia Zilla Parishad and as such the Nadia Zilla Parishad should have the right to auction the same. He further contends that the tender had been validly floated observing all formalities and complying with the norms applicable for which no interference is called for in respect of the auction process. He also submitted that the writ petitioner had been given the opportunity by the order impugned to operate the ferry service till 31st March, 2018 which time period has already expired and the Nadia Zilla Parishad should be permitted to finalize the bids so that the operation of the ferry service does not come to a standstill. 10. After considering the rival contentions we find that the cause of action of the writ petitioner (respondent no. 1 in the appeal) in the writ petition was based on certain grounds which are different from the grounds urged in appeal by the appellant municipality. Though both the writ petitioner and the appellant have challenged the competence and authority of the Nadia Zilla Parishad to float the tender but the same are not based on identical set of facts and legal provisions. Though both the writ petitioner and the appellant have challenged the competence and authority of the Nadia Zilla Parishad to float the tender but the same are not based on identical set of facts and legal provisions. The appellant’s cause of action, if any, as sought to be espoused before us while assailing the order impugned being different from that of the writ petitioner, the appellant cannot be permitted to challenge the order impugned in an appeal arising therefrom when it has not itself filed an independent writ petition challenging the jurisdiction, authority and competence of Nadia Zilla Parishad. Moreover, the appellant is an added respondent. 11. The grievances of the appellant cannot, therefore, be ventilated in an appeal arising out of the final order passed in the writ petition filed by the Nabadwip Jalapath Paribahan Co-operative Society Ltd. (respondent no. 1). In an appeal filed by the appellant on the basis of the factual and legal propositions urged before we are also unable to go into the merits of its case to grant the appellant any relief for the reasons as aforesaid. 12. We, therefore, are not inclined to interfere with the order impugned at the instance of the appellant (added respondent no. 7 in the writ petition) in the instant appeal. We, however, make it clear that we refrain from entering into the merits of the appellant’s case. The appellant is free to ventilate it grievances as urged before us in an appropriate forum in accordance with law. 13. Before parting we feel that the case sought to be made out before us by the appellant can easily be resolved at the government level as it is between two elected bodies of local self-government. This, in effect, will save litigation cost, precious judicial time and above all, tax payers’ money, which can be more gainfully utilised for public service at the local self-government level. 14. The appeal and the connected application for stay stand disposed of accordingly.