WP(C) 3039/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE IA ANSARI Heard Mr. J Abedin, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C) No. 3039 /2011, and Mr. BC Das, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner in WP(C) No. 22 73/2011, and Mr. BL Sinha, learned Government Advocate. Heard also Mr. PK Roy Ch oudhury, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the private respondent, namely, Sri Balen Medhi. By Notice Inviting Tender, dated 06-01-2011, tenders were invited for se ttlement of Dhing Bazar (Athgaon Hat) for the year 2011-2012. In response to the said NIT, altogether six persons participated in the tender process. The settle ment was, eventually, made in favour of Sri Balen Medhi, who is respondent No. 4 in both the writ petitions, namely, WP(C) No. 3039/2011 and WP(C) No. 2273/2011 . Before the writ petition, namely, WP(C) No. 3039/2011 was filed, representations had already been made by the petitioners in the two writ petitions aforemention ed, addressed to the respondent No. 2, namely, Director, Municipal Administratio n, Assam, seeking to invoke his jurisdiction under Section 296 of the Assam Muni cipal Act. The representations have not yet been disposed of. Considering the matter in its entirety and in the interest of justice, t hese writ petitions are disposed of with direction to the respondent No. 2, name ly, Director, Municipal Administration, Assam, to take a decision, in accordance with law, on the representations, dated 24-05-2011 and 03-03-2011, aforemention ed after according opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned, particul arly, the petitioners in both the writ petition and the respondent No. 4, namely , Sri Balen Medhi. The whole exercise, so directed, shall be completed within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order by the res pondent No. 2. Whatever decision is taken by the respondent No. 2 or whatever or der is passed by the respondent No. 2, the same shall govern the subject of cont roversy in the two writ petitions, whereby, as indicated above, the settlement m ade in fvaour of the respondent No. 4, stands impugned. If any of the parties fe els aggrieved by the decision(s), which may be taken by the respondent No. 2, or by the order(s), which may be passed by the respondent No. 2, the aggrieved par ty shall remain at liberty to take recourse to such provisions of law as may be permissible.