IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9161 of 2005 Sujit Kumar Yadav, son of Lakhan Narayan Yadav, resident of village Azam Nagar, P.S. Azam Nagar, District Katihar. …. Petitioner Versus 1. The Union Of India, through the Chairman, Railway Board, New Delhi 2. The D.R.M. (Works), North Frontier Railway, Katihar. 3. Divisional Engineer/I North Frontier Railway, Katihar 4. New North Frontier Railway, Katihar 5. Md. Safi Akhtar, son of late Yunush, resident of village Mahadebpur, P.S. Pranpur, District Katihar. ……. Respondents ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Imtiaz Hussain, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. M. N. Parwat, Advocate ---------- 02/ 30.06.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for the following reliefs :- (i) For quashing of Annexure 5 by which fishing rights of the petitioner has been cancelled by respondent no.3 before Full term of contract despite having deposited full settlement value. (ii) For direction upon the respondent to restore the agreement reached with the petitioner for the period of 2001-2006 for settlement of fishing right up to 2006. (iii) For direction upon the respondent to give the petitioner sufficient time to make full and final payment for the period 2002-2003 of the sum of Rs.89580/- out of which 40000/- has already been paid by the petitioner. (iv) For direction upon the respondent in alternative to adjust the forfeited amount with interest on it towards the balance payment for period 2002-2003. 2 (v) Any other relief/reliefs as deem fit and proper. 3. From the arguments made by learned counsel for the petitioner as well as from the materials on record, it is quite apparent that the claim of the petitioner has been rejected by the Divisional Engineer-I of N.F, Railway, Katihar vide his order dated 07.06.2002 (Annexure 5). Against the said order, the petitioner sent an application vide legal notice dated 16.03.2005 to the Divisional Railway Manager (Works) of N.F, Railway, Katihar raising several points challenging the said order. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said representation/legal notice sent through his Advocate still remains unreplied and unheeded. In the said circumstances, he seeks permission to withdraw this writ petition with a liberty to the petitioner to approach the said authority again, to which learned counsel for the respondents raises no objection. 5. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty. If the petitioner files an application before the said authority raising all his grievances along with a copy of the aforesaid legal notice dated 16.03.2005 and a copy of this order within fifteen days from today, the said authority shall consider and decide the same by a speaking order within two months thereafter. MPS/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )