WP(C) 269/2009 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE I A ANSARI Heard Mr. K. Paul, learned counsel, for the petitioner, and Ms. B.L. Sinha, lear ned Addl. Senior Govt. Advocate, appearing on behalf of the respondents. One Mrs. Lalrin Feli was settlement holder, in respect of Gumrah Stone Mahal, fo r the period from 24.12.2006 to 02.02.2009. However, on her failure to deposit kist money (i.e., installment), the settlement made, in her favour, was cancelle d and a risk sale notice, dated 24.10.2007, was published by the State responden ts inviting tenders for the remaining period of original settlement, which was t o end on 02.01.2009. The petitioner participated in the tender process, which wa s commenced pursuant to the risk sale notice, dated 24.10.2007. Eventually, it a ppears, even according to what the petitioner contends, that the petitioner was given settlement for the period from 24.12.2008 to 02.01.2009. As against the fa ct that the petitioner had been given settlement barely for a period of nine day s commencing from 24.12.2008 and ending on 02.01.2009, the petitioner did not ra ise any objection. At any rate, when the original settlement, which had been mad e in favour of Ms. Lalrin Feli, was to expire, by efflux of time, on 02.01.2009, the petitioner could not have been settled the said mahal, under the provisions of the relevant Rules, beyond the original lessee’s settlement period. The pet itioner has, therefore, not specifically expressed any grievance against the fac t that the settlement was given barely for a period of 9 (nine) days, which was to commence from 24.12.2008 and end on 02.01.2009. His grievance is that the or der of settlement was served on him on 03.01.2009 and, as a result thereof, he c ould not enjoy the benefit of the said settlement. It was not the case of the pe titioner that he ought to have been allowed settlement beyond 02.01.2009. Thus, even if the petitioner has not been able to operate the said Stone Mahal f or the said period of nine days, it cannot be made a ground to cancel and/or wit hhold the process of settlement, in respect of the said stone mahal, which the S tate respondents have initiated and which has been stopped by this Court by an i nterim order, passed, in this case, on 04.02.2009. If the petitioner has not bee n able to run the said Stone Mahal for the lapse on the part of the respondents, who, according to the petitioner, had served the said settlement order on 03.01 .2009, the grievance of the petitioner can be well compensated in terms of money . Situated thus, this Court is of the view that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, regular process of selection of a lessee, for the purpose o f granting settlement of the said Mahal beyond the said period of settlement, ca nnot be held up by this Court. In view of the above and in the interest of justice, this writ petition is not a dmitted and the same shall accordingly stand dismissed. However, the earnest mo ney, which has been deposited by the petitioner, or the security money, which mi ght have been deposited by the petitioner, shall be returned to him in accordanc e with law. The interim directions, passed, in this case, on 04.02.2009, shall accordingly s tand vacated.