WP(C) 1814/2007 BEFORE HON’BLE JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA This writ petition has been filed making a challenge to the particular t ender notice issued by the respondent Board on the ground that the prayer of the petitioner for extension of the earlier lease period has not been considered. The petitioner was settled with the market in question, namely Paglastan Daily Market, for the year 2006-2007. Just at the eve of expiry of the lease pe riod, the petitioner made Annexure-4 representation dated 09.02.07 to Executive Officer, Bongaigaon Municipal Board seeking extension of the lease period on the ground that the market remained frequently closed resulting financial loss to t he petitioner. The aforesaid representation was followed by Annexure-5 represent ation dated 26.03.07 addressed to the Director of Municipal Administration Depar tment, Assam praying for extension of period of lease for another one year, i.e. upto 31.03.08. The grounds for such extension was the purported frequent closur e of the market due to various bandh called by the political and non-political o rganizations. The writ petition was filed at the time when the Annexure-7 tender notic e dated 07.02.07 was issued for fresh settlement of the market for the period of 2007-08. Thus, it will be seen that the prayer for extension of the lease perio d was made by the petitioner only after issuance of tender notice. Only ground a ssigned in the writ petition is the purported frequent closure of the market due to bandhs given by the political and non-political parties. In the representati on dated 26.03.07 the petitioner referred to his letter addressed to the Executi ve Officer by which the prayer for extension was made. Such prayer was made befo re depositing the last kist money. According to the petitioner instead of consi dering the prayer of the petitioner fresh tender process was initiated. The respondents have filed counter affidavit. In the affidavit, it has b een stated that the petitioner failed to deposit the kist money inspite of servi ce of notice on him. It has been stated that by not depositing the kist money th e petitioner has violated the terms and conditions of the tender notice and the settlement. In this connection, the respondents have referred to Annexures A, B and C notice dated 16.09.96, 06.01.07 and 20.02.07 respectively by which the pe titioner was reminded his duty to deposit the kist money. By Annexure-C letter d ated 20.02.07, the petitioner was informed to deposit the last kist money of Rs. 52,500/- within the stipulated period intimating that upon failure to deposit t he same, the settlement would be cancelled. Mr. D. Majumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since t he petitioner had made application for extension of the lease period, it was inc umbent on the part of the respondents to consider and dispose of the same before making any settlement pursuant to the impugned tender notice. At this stage, Mr . M.U. Mahmud, learned counsel for the Municipal Board submits that in fact, the petitioner was informed about the rejection of his prayer by the Board by its l etter dated 12.02.07. In the letter, it was intimated that since the petitioner failed to deposit the aforesaid amount of Rs. 52,500/-, there was no question of granting further extension of lease period. Learned counsel for the petitioner has questioned the validity of disposal of the representation by the Municipal B oard since the prayer was made to the Director of Municipal Administration Depar tment on 26.03.07. The petitioner as per own showing made the representation dated 09.02.0 7 to the Executive Officer, Bongaigaon Municipal Board. In that view of the matt er, there is nothing wrong in disposing of the representation by the said author ity by its letter dated 12.02.07. Mr. Majumdar, learned counsel for the petition er submits that the petitioner has not been furnished with the copy of the lette r dated 12.02.07. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the pa rties and the materials on record. The petitioner has not denied the contentions raised in the affidavit in opposition. If the petitioner is defaulter in paymen t of kist money, there is no question of granting extension of lease period by i ncurring loss. The writ petition was filed at the time that the fresh tender pro cess was initiated. As per normal rule, market etc. should be settled through te nder process. The respondents have not been able to make settlement in view of t he interim order passed by this Court. Mr. Mahmud, learned counsel for the Board submits that in view of the stalemate created by the petitioner, the Board has suffered loss of revenue. As per the own showing of the petitioner vide Annexur e-4 letter dated 09.02.07, the petitioner did not deposit the kist money and he undertook to deposit the same on 15.02.07. It is submitted that the petitioner h as not deposited the said kist money and instead approached this Court by filing the instant writ petition. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and a ccordingly it is dismissed. The respondent Board shall finalise the tender proce ss as expeditiously as possible. Interim order passed earlier stands vacated. Th e respondent Municipal Board will be at liberty to realize the aforesaid kist mo ney of Rs. 52,500/- from the petitioner in accordance with law.