WP(C) 3004/2009 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTIC B P KATAKEY The petitioner, who was issued with the order of settlement to run the Borpani s and mahal for the period from 2008-2010, has challenged the risk-sale notice dat ed 24th June 2009 issued by the Divisional Forest Officer (DFO), Nagaon, putting the mahal to sale at the risk of the petitioner as he could not run it. I have heard Mr MR Laskar, learned counsel for the petitioner and also M rs HM Phukan, learned state counsel appearing for the respondents. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that tho ugh after receipt of the provisional order of settlement dated 5th July 2008 an application was filed by him before the Commissioner and Secretary to the Govern ment of Assam in the Environment and Forest Department explaining the reason as to why he was not in a position to manage the mahal, the authority passed the fi nal order of settlement in his favour on 19.6.2009 without considering the same, against which also another application was filed by him on 19.6.2009 before the said authority narrating the reasons for not being able to run the mahal. Accor ding to the petitioner, the DFO has issued the risk-sale notice on 24.6.2009 wit hout considering the said representations. No affidavit-in-opposition has been filed by any of the parties, though the writ petition is pending for the last two years. Learned state counsel, however, has submitted that since the petitioner did not run the mahal in spite of the orders of settlement passed, it had to be put to sale at his risk and cost. It appears that this Court by order dated 27th July 2009 passed an inter im order allowing the DFO to put the mahal to sale but not at the risk and cost of the petitioner. Learned state counsel could not apprise this Court whether the said maha l has been put to sale in pursuance of the notice dated 24th June 2009. Since, the petitioner immediately on receipt of the provisional order of settlement submitted a representation before the Commissioner and Secretary, En vironment and Forest Department and again immediately after issuance of the fina l order of settlement, grievance raised by him ought to have been looked into by the authority prior to issuance of the sale notice, which was not done. No reco rds have also been produced to demonstrate that the grievances of the petitioner were considered before taking decision to put the said mahal to sale at the ris k and cost of the petitioner. That being the position, this petition is disposed of directing the resp ondent no.1, that is the Commissioner and Secretary to the government of Assam i n the Forest & Environment Department, to consider the representations filed by the petitioner prior to realisation of any cost of such settlement in terms of t he risk-sale notice dated 24.6.2009, even if the sale had already been completed , and to pass necessary order thereon. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.