WP(C) 3970/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANIMA HAZARIKA Heard Mr S. Banik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr J . Bora, Learned Standing Counsel, Inland Water Transport as well as Mr P. Roy, learned State counsel appearing for the respondents. The instant writ petition has been filed praying for a direction to the responde nt authority to extend the term of settlement of Guijan Barghuli Ferry Service, Tinsukia, with the petitioner for another one year i.e. up to the period 2011-20 12 at the revenue of Rs. 3,00,000/-(Rupees three lacs) annually and/or to dispo se of the representation (Annexure-IV of the writ petition) submitted by the pet itioner within a fixed time. The petitioner’s case in a nutshell is that the petitioner was settled with Guij an Borghuli Ferry Service of Tinsukia vide order dated 5.4.2010 with effect from 5.4.2010 to 31.3.2011. However, he was not allowed to run the said Ferry Servic e. A writ petition being WP(C) No. 2894/2010 was filed by one Sanjoy Das, the ea rlier lessee of the said Ferry Service, assailing, amongst others, the settlemen t so made with the petitioner, on the premise that the writ petitioner had not p articipated in the tender process. In fact, the writ petitioner was settled with the Guijan Borghuli Ferry Service by the State respondents in the Transport Dep artment while said Sanjoy Das was settled with Guijan Borghuli (via Kacbuchapori ) Ferry Service by the Tinsukia Zilla Parishad. So the non-participation of the writ petitioner in the tender process for the settlement of Guijan Borghuli (via Kacbuchapori) Ferry Service is of no consequence. This Court disposed of the af oresaid writ petition vide order dated 21.5.2010 directing the authorities to di spose of the representation submitted by the writ petitioner, Sri Sanjoy Das wit h further direction to maintain status-quo as on date, till disposal of the r epresentation, with regard to the ferry i.e. Guijan Parghat and until such a final decision is taken, the ferry in question would be under the jurisdiction of the Tinsukia Zilla Parishad. Guijan Borghuli Ferry Service and Guijan Borghuli (via Kacbuchapori) Ferry Service are notified Ferry Service s vide Notification dated 02.09.2009. As such the State Government (Transport De partment) is the competent authority to make settlements of the said two Ferry S ervices viz., Guijan Borghuli Ferry Service and Guijan Borghuli (via Kacbuchapo ri) Ferry Service which is also called Guijan Parghat. The routes prescribed for the respective Ferry Services are distinct and different. The route for Guijan Borghuli Ferry Service is not one and the same as that of Guijan Borghuli (via K acbuchapori) Ferry Service. After passing of the order dated 21.5.2010, the peti tioner was not allowed to run the Guijan Borghuli Ferry Service. Therefore, an a ppeal was carried out before the Division Bench of this Court being W.A. No. 200 /2010 against the said order dated 21.05.2010. The writ appeal was withdrawn wit h a liberty to file a review petition and the review petition No. 78/2010 was di sposed of vide order dated 24.09.2010 directing the authorities to dispose of t he representation filed by Sanjoy Das within 3 weeks. Thereafter, respondent No. 2 passed an order on 20.12.2010 upon the representation submitted by Sri Sanjoy Das in compliance to the order dated 21.05.2010 passed in WP(C) No. 2894/2010 a nd eventually the present petitioner was handed over possession of the Ferry on 12.01.2011. As the period of settlement stood expired on 31.03.2011, the petitio ner had prayed for extension of the lease period on the ground of loss sustained by submitting a representation before the respondent No.5. But till date, repre sentation so submitted by the petitioner has not been disposed of. On the other hand, the petitioner is being allowed to run the Ferry for 15 days at a time. Th e petitioner is paying the kist money and the last kist paid was on 01.08.2011. The loss suffered by the petitioner being apparent, the petitioner is aggrieved for the inaction, on the part of the authority in not disposing his representati on. Hence, this writ petition with the aforesaid prayer. In the above background, the limited prayer of the petitioner is for a direction to the respondent No. 5 i.e. the Executive Engineer, Inland Water Transport Di vision, Dibrugarh to dispose of the representation within a time frame, whereby the petitioner has prayed for extension of the lease period of the Guijan Borgh uli Ferry Service, Tinsukia for 2011-2012. To the limited prayer so made by the petitioner, learned counsel appearing for t he respondents have raised no objection. Considering the matter in its entirety and the limited prayer made by the petiti oner, the respondent No. 5 is directed to dispose of the representation so submi tted by the petitioner within a period of three (3) weeks from the date of recei pt of the certified copy of this order. The petitioner shall submit the certifie d copy of this order alongwith the copy of the writ petition with the annexures appended thereto before respondent No. 5 within a period of fifteen (15) days fr om today. With the above direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs.