WP(C) 2544/2007 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI Heard Mr AM Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. HRA Choudh ury, learned counsel for the respondent No.3; Mr BD Konwar, learned counsel for the respondent No.5 and Mr G Soren, learned Govt. Advocate, Assam. The challenge in the instant writ petition is against the NIT dated 17.4 .2007 issued by the Barpeta Zilla Parishad inviting tenders inter alia for the f ollowing markets and parghat :- 1. Balikuri Hat 2. Kadong Hat 3. Satrakenora Hat 4. Jania Hat 5. Kadong Beki Parghat The core contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that the afo resaid markets and the parghat were settled for the previous term by the authori ties of the Mandia Anchalik Panchayat and that the Zilla Parishad has sought to bring the same within its jurisdiction by unauthorisingly enhancing the value of the said markets and the parghat. The said contention has relevance to a pronouncement of this Court in WA No. 325/2003 which is to the effect that the m arkets and parghats of value less than Rs. One Lakh are to be settled by the Anc halik Panchayat and those above Rs. One Lakh are to be settled by the Zilla Pari shad. The Zilla Parishad represented by Mr HRA Choudhury on the contrary conte nds that the fixation of value of the markets and the parghat in question has be en made after following the prescribed norms. While this writ petition had remained pending, the markets and the pargh at in question have been settled by the Mandia Anchalik Panchayat after issuing a NIT. The said markets and the parghat are presently being run by the concerned lessees. Though Mr Choudhury, learned counsel for the Zilla Parishad denies any knowledge of such settlement, the materials placed before the Court make is cle ar that such settlements have been made by the Anchalik Panchayat. Neither the aforesaid settlements made by the Anchalik Panchayat have been challenged in the present proceeding by way of amendment of the writ petition, nor are the person s who are running and operating the markets and the parghat in question are befo re the Court. Any order of the Court with regard to the jurisdiction of either o f the two Panchayat authorities to settle the markets and the parghat in questio n, therefore, may be injurious to the persons not before the Court. In the above circumstances, the Court is of the view that the issue aris ing in the instant writ petition with regard to the jurisdiction and competence of either of the two authorities, namely, Anchalik Panchayat and Zilla Parishad to settle the markets and the parghat in question should not be answered by the Court at this stage. The contentions raised in the writ petition are, therefore, not being gone into. Instead the writ petition is ordered to be closed with lib erty to any of the aggrieved party to challenge the settlements made by the Anch alik Panchayat in question, if so advised on all available grounds including the jurisdiction of the Anchalik Panchayat to make the settlements in question. The writ petition is closed in terms of the above directions.