WP(C) 5475/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY Heard the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner Mr. J Payeng and als o heard Mr. R. Ali, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.6. Official respondents are represented by Mr. R.K. Bora, learned Government Advocate. This matter pertains to the No.1 Balikuri Kalanir Pora Kalani Noi Beki N adir Paraghat (hereinafter referred to as the Parghat ), where this Court by or der dated 25.8.2010 in the petition filed by respondent No.6 Md. Hazarat Ali ha d ordered the Settling Authority i.e. Mandia Anchalik Panchayat to consider and dispose of the petitioner’s representation dated 15.7.2010. Pursuant to the Cou rt’s direction, an order was passed by the Executive Officer of the Mandia Ancha lik Panchayat on 15.9.2010 giving settlement of the Parghat from 9.9.2010 to 30 .6.2011 with the respondent No.6 at his bid of Rs.71,505 (Rupees seventy one tho usand five hundred five) only. Strangely the subsisting settlement in favour of the writ petitioner was called subsequently on 22.9.2010 (Annexure-F), only afte r a decision was taken to grant fresh settlement in favour of respondent No.6. The petitioner challenges the orders of the Mandia Anchalik Panchayat b y contending that no opportunity was afforded to him before his settlement order was cancelled and the respondent No.6 was granted fresh settlement, even during the subsistence of the settlement with the writ petitioner. Having considered the submissions made, this Court while admitting the w rit petition on 1.10.2006, passed interim order staying the operation of the imp ugned orders dated 15.9.2010 and 22.9.2010 issued by the Executive Officer of th e Mandia Anchalik Panchayat. Since it is a settlement for a limited term, the learned counsel appear ing for the respondent No.6 submits that instead of keeping the matter pending i n this Court, direction be given to the Settling Authority to consider the griev ances of the writ petitioner about not affording an opportunity to him before th e impugned orders were passed. Mr. Payeng, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits tha t the respondent No.6 is an aged person and was therefore incapable of managing a Parghat and there was a condition in the NIT that settlement shall not be made with a person aged above 65 years. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsels, I am of the v iew that the Mandia Anchalik Panchayat should be directed to take a fresh deci sion in pursuant to the earlier Court’s order dated 25.8.2010 in WP(C) 4721/2010 . However such decision be taken after affording an opportunity of hearing to th e writ petitioner and the respondent No.6. It is ordered accordingly. In view of the above order the writ petition stands allowed and the orde rs dated 22.9.2010 and 15.9.2010 of the Executive Officer of the Mandia Anchalik Panchayat stands quashed. The fresh decision is ordered to be taken within 2 weeks from today and the parties to appear before the Executive Officer of the Mandia Anchalik Pancha yat on 6.12.2010. This order is passed in presence of the learned counsels for the parties. Until a fresh decision is taken, status quo on the operation of the Parg hat shall be maintained.