WA 331/2009 BEFORE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MADAN B. LOKUR THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY [M.B. Lokur, CJ] The appellant is aggrieved by an order dated 26.08.2009 passed by a lear ned Single Judge in WP(C) No.3039/2009. In the writ petition filed by respondent No.6, a direction was sought se eking implementation of the minutes of the meeting dated 10.06.2008 held in the office chamber of the Deputy Commissioner, Nalbari. The relevant decision that w as sought to be implemented is as follows:- After threadbare discussion, the Committee accepted the plot of land ow ned by Shri Brigu Dutta Sarma as offered by the owner near Charminar Chowk (Bara ma Road) for stoppage of Bus/LMVs etc. for the route from Nalbari to Barama, Tih u, Merkuchi etc. The proposed Stand inside the ASTC complex cannot be accepted from the s ecurity point of view as District & Sessions Judge Court, Deputy Commissioner’s Office, CJM Court etc. are located in this locality. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the learned Single Judge directed the State to implement the decision taken in the meeting held on 10.06. 2008. In compliance with the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge , it appears that an effort was made to shift the parking lot in terms of the de cision of the meeting held on 10.06.2008. It appears from the letter dated 09.10 .2009 of the Superintendent of Police, Nalbari, that the decision in so far as p arking point No.4, Barama Road, Nalbari is concerned had already been implemente d and that it had failed. Subsequently, in the affidavit dated 17.12.2009 filed by Sri Dinesh Ch. Nath, Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Nalbari, it has been stated that the ASTC stati on complex at Nalbari is a suitable place for parking of light vehicles but the said complex is situated in front of the Court of the District & Sessions Judge, Nalbari and 100 ft. approximately away from the court of the District Magistrat e, Nalbari. It is submitted that because of the congestion and noise pollution e tc. it may hamper the smooth functioning of the Court and there is every possibi lity of an accident occurring. In the circumstances, it is stated that there is a need to explore other parking lots for smooth vehicular movement. It is clear that the order passed by learned Single Judge has been imple mented. However, the site where the parking has been provided is not suitable in spite of a decision taken by the Deputy Commissioner, Nalbari on 10.06.2008. Under the circumstances we cannot compel the respondents to stick to the ir decision. In view of the letter dated 09.10.2009 of the Superintendent of Police a nd the affidavit dated 17.12.2009 we think it appropriate to direct the concerne d authorities to find a suitable alternative site for parking of the vehicles. W e would expect that the allotment of site by the State is done transparently, pr eferably by a tender process. In view of the above, the appeal does not survive and is disposed of.