WP(C) 1443/2011 BEFORE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANIMA HAZARIKA Heard Mr.D.A.Kaiyum, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr.B.J.Talukdar learned State Counsel appearing for the State respondents. Considering the grievance raised in the writ petition and as agreed to b y the learned counsel appearing for the parties, this writ petition is being dis posed of at the motion stage itself. The respondent No.3 i.e. Chief Executive Officer, Goalpara Zilla Parisha d issued NIT for settlement of different Hats, Ghats and Fisheries under its ju risdiction including the present Market in question for the year 2010-11. The s aid NIT was set aside by this Court by an order dated 30.6.2010 passed in W.P(C) No. 3476/2010. Thereafter, the Matia Anchalik Panchayat issued another NIT on 2 .8.2010(Annexure-A). The authority having found the offer of respondent No.6 at Rs.9,07,499.00 as the valid highest offer, the Market in question i.e. Sutarpara Pasu Hat was settled with him vide order dated 5.10.2010(Annexure-B) for the year 2010-11(i.e from 1.10.2010 to 30.6.2011) and asked him to abide by the te rms and conditions of the NIT. In the settlement order it was also mentioned tha t any violation of the terms and conditions of the NIT may invite cancellation o f the lease at any time. Upon an application filed on 25.1.2011 under Right to I nformation Act, 2005 before the Public Information Officer, Goalpara seeking som e information/documents including the NIT, order of settlement and money payment receipts of the respondent No.6 in respect of the settlement of the aforesaid M arket, the same was furnished on 21.2.2011(Annexure-C&D series), which would rev eal that respondent No.6 on 21.2.2011 has deposited only Rs.3,11,586.00, althoug h as per terms of Clause 13 and 21 of the NIT the lessee should deposit 60% of t he total settlement value, as Ist Kist within a period of three days from the da te of settlement. Clause 13 and 21 of the NIT are pre-requisite conditions for settlement of the Market and violation or deviation of the same would lead to cancellation of the lease. In view of the same the lease of the Respondent No.6 ought to have been cancelled in terms of order dated 5.10.2010. In spite of the above, the authority has not taken any action against the Respondent No.6 who is running the Market apparently on extraneous consideration at the cost of public revenue. The further case of the petitioner is that the petitioner has submitted a representation on 21.2.2011 before the respondent No.3 praying therein to canc el the settlement order of respondent No.6 on the ground of violation of the ter ms and conditions of the NIT. But the said representation has not been disposed of till date. Hence the instant writ petition. In view of the above, the limited prayer of the petitioner is for a dire ction to respondent No.3 to dispose of the representation submitted by the petit ioner within a time frame. To the limited prayer so made, State counsel has raised no objection. In view of the limited prayer of the petitioner and also considering the grievan ce raised in the Writ petition, this petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.3 i.e. Chief Executive Officer, Goalpara Zilla Parishad, Goalpara to dispose of the representation dated 21.2.2011 submitted by the petitioner in accordance with law, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order alongwith a copy of the writ petition and the anne xures appended thereto . With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No cost .