WP(C) 2139/2007 BEFORE HON’BLE JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY Heard Mr. D. Das, the learned counsel appearing for the petition er. Also heard Mr. A.K. Bhuyan, the learned Standing counsel for the Transport D epartment. As agreed to by the learned counsels appearing for the parties, this case is being disposed of with the following order at motion stage itself. The case in brief is that the petitioner is carrying on laminati on business in the proximity of the office of the District Transport Officer, Ka mrup located at Ulubari. The petitioners are occupying tenanted spaces, from where they a re conducting their business. It has been argued that in order to carry on the business of the petitioners, they need to be located in close proximity to the office of the DT O and they are also required to work in tandem, with the officers and staff of t he District Transport Office. Since the Office of the DTO is to be shifted from its present location at Ulubari to a new location at Betkuchi, Lokhra, the peti tioner has made a claim for allotment of similar place in the new site of the DT O’s Office to enable them to carry on their present business. Mr. Bhuyan, the learned Standing counsel, Transport Department h as submitted that another State Government undertaking AMTRON has been entrust ed with the task of preparing the smart card with the embedded chip for preparat ion of Driving License and Registration Certificate and as the smart cards doesn ’t need laminations, there may not be any need for the services rendered by the petitioner. However, Mr. Das, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits tha t for issuing Learner’s License for which smart card is not used and other relat ed functioning, their service would still be necessary and AMTRON by operation of smart card may not be able to provide the same. In this context, the learned counsel for the petitioner refers to the communication dated 23.03.2007 issued by the Commissioner of Transport, wherein existing lamination units like the pet itioner were entrusted to prepare uniformly styled electrically or computer type d Learner’s Licenses. In view of the rival submissions made as noted above, it is cons idered appropriate to direct the Respondent Authorities to take a reasoned decis ion on the claim made by the petitioner through the present petition as it would be appropriate for the Respondent Authorities to take a decision on the matter by considering the requirement of the Department and the public interest. Accordingly, it is directed that the petitioners would file appr opriate representation before the Commissioner, Transport Department. As some o f the petitioners are stated to have already filed their representations before the authorities, they may either file the very same representation or may file a fresh representation. Such representations may be submitted within the next two days. Within seven days thereafter, the Commissioner of Transport May take a decision on the representations to be filed by the petitioner. The Commis sioner should also communicate the decision taken on the representation filed by the petitioner. Naturally any decision as may be taken, shall be supported by a dequate reasoning to be given by the decision-making authority. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is disposed of.