WP(C) 4131/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY Heard the learned counsels appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. RK Bora , learned Government Advocate for the official respondent. Although the name of the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.7 is reflected in the Cause List, none is present to defend his interest. This matter pertains to the process of settlement of the Mandia Hat in p ursuant to the NIT dated 12.4.2010 issued by the Mandia Anchalik Panchayat. The second highest bid offered by the petitioner was Rs.15,01,341/- (Rupees fifteen lakhs one thousand three hundred forty one) whereas the respondent No.7 made the highest bid at Rs.31,11,111/- (Rupees thirty one lakhs, eleven thousands, one h undred eleven). Pursuant to the highest bid made by the respondent No.7, Barpeta Zilla Parishad by its order dated 30.6.2010 granted settlement of the Mandia Ha t to the said respondent. The settlement holder was required to pay Rs.17,11,111 /- (Rupees seventeen lakhs eleven thousands one hundred eleven) as Security Mone y and first instalment on or before 1.7.2010. The writ petitioner challenge the settlement order dated 30.6.2010 by co ntending that the respondent No.7 failed to deposit the requisite amount in term s of the settlement order. It is also contended that an exorbitant bid was submi tted by the said respondent and that is how he has failed to make the necessary deposit, proportionate to the bid offered by him. It appears from the affidavit in opposition filed by the Chief Executive Officef of the Barpeta Zilla Parishad that the respondent No.7 has deposited on ly Rs.5,00,000/- as on 1.7.2010 and there is nothing on record to show that he h as deposited the remainder of the due amount as the settlement holder of the Man dia Hat. It is submitted by Mr. A Roshid, learned counsel appearing for the petit ioner that since the respondent No.7 has defaulted in making deposit of the Kist amounts, being the second highest bidder the petitioner should be permitted t o run the Hat at the 2nd highest but practical bid offered by him. Mr. R.K. Bora, learned Government Advocate submits that in view of the f ailure of the settlement holder to pay the instalment and the willingness of the petitioner (the second highest bidder) to accept settlement, direction may be g iven to consider for granting settlement of the Mandia Hat for the remainder per iod, with the writ petitioner. Having considered the above, I am of the view that the respondent No.7 h aving defaulted in paying the ’Kist’ has forfeited the right to operate the Mand ia Hat. Accordingly I am inclined to allow this petition by directing the Settling Autho rity to consider within 2 weeks, granting settlement of the Mandia Hat to the pe titioner for the remainder of the settlement period. It is ordered accordingly. Writ petition stands allowed accordingly.