WP(C) 2679/2007 BEFORE HON’BLR MR JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY Heard Mr MH Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr Roy, learned State counsel for the official respondents. The facts briefly stated for disposing of this petition are that ,in res ponse to a Notice Inviting Tender( for short ’NIT’) dated 18.5.2006 issued by M urkenez Chelek Anchalik Panchayat, Jonai(hereinafter referred to as ’Anchalik Pa nchayat’) inviting tenders for settlement amongst others of Dekapam Daily and w eekly Bazar for the panchayat year 2006-2007 i.e. from 1.7.2006 to 30.6.2007,the petitioner and others participated in the process. Though the petitioner was a djudged to be the valid highest bidder, the settlement was awarded on 31.7.2 006 to Gagon Kaman, 6th in order, in terms of the bid offered. Being aggrieved , the petitioner approached this Court with WP( C) No.4597/2006 challenging the said decision which was eventually allowed on 2.5.2007, whereafter he was award ed the settlement on 28.5.2007. He thereafter completed the formalities and star ted running the market. In the meantime, by the impugned NIT dated 3/5/2007 a p rocess for fresh settlement of the market for the next panchayat year 2007-2008 has been initiated. The outer limit for submission of tenders has been fixed to be 4.6 .2007. The petitioner is before this Court assailing the decision of the respondent authorities for commencing th e new process without granting one year full term to him. Mr Choudhury while reiterating the above has submitted that in the facts and ci rcumstances of the case, the petitioner at least is entitled to a direction to t he respondent authorities to extend the dead line for submission of tenders be yond 4.6.2007 by a reasonable time so as to enable him to submit his tender. The petitioner in the meantime, has also submitted a representation on 31.5.2007 be fore the Sub Divisional Officer(Civil), Jonai praying for extension of his term beyond 30.6.2007. The learned State counsel has urged that there being no provision for ex tension of the settlement period in the Assam Panchayat Act,1994, the prayer to the said effect is misconceived. Further, the petitioner though fully aware of t he last date for submission of tenders as mentioned in the impugned NIT had fa iled to offer his candidature in time and therefore no direction as prayed for ought to be issued. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I feel persuaded to su stain the submissions made on behalf of the respondents. A plain reading of th e operative portion of the judgment and order dated 22.5.2007 of this Court in W P( C) No.4579/2006 indicates that consequent upon the annulment of the settlement of the market in favour o f Gagon Kaman (respondent No.5 herein) the Anchalik Panchayat was directed to s ettle the same in favour of the highest bidder for the un-expired term. Ac cordingly the market was settled to the petitioner for the remaining term endin g on 30.6.2007 . The impugned NIT was issued on 3.5.2007 specifying 4.6.2007 to be the last date for submission of tenders. Admittedly, the market was settle d with the petitioner on 28.5.2007 and at present he is operating the same. The instant petition has been filed on 2.6.2007 . It does not disclose any compelli ng or persuasive reason to conclude that the petitioner was prevented thereby to submit his tender in response to the impugned NIT. That he had submitted a representation for extension of his term beyond 30.6.20 07 is of no consequence in absence of any provision in the Act to grant him suc h relief. Further, to accede to the prayer for directing the respondent authorit ies to extend the outer limit of submission of tenders as referred to in the i mpugned NIT, in my view, would amount to interfering with a public process ini tiated under a statute without any cogent justification. Most importantly, the petition does not disclose any convincing reason to warrant such a direction in the exercise of this Court’s extra ordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. I am thus not inclined to order the respondents to take that course. In the above view of the matter, this petition fails and is dismissed. The above , notwithstanding, it would be open for the petitioner to approach the concerne d respondent authorities and they are left at liberty to take an appropriate decision in this regard as they may deem fit and proper. The petition stands closed in the above terms. No costs.