WP(C) 5760/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE U B SAHA The petitioners are the proprietor of a firm namely, Yukub & Sons, subsequently re-named as M/S. Khalilur Rahman and Sons and licence of S.K. oil was issued in favour of their firm. They were running the S.K. oil agency for several years, b ut subsequently the petitioner No.1 became seriously ill and for smooth function ing of the agency, they appointed one Sri Khalilur Rahman of Katigorah as their Manager who was looking after the affairs of the agency till his death in the y ear 2005 and after his death his wife, respondent No.6, Moriom Bibi started to l ook after the affairs of the aforesaid agency and ultimately on 20.7.2006 she wr ote a letter to the respondent No.3, Deputy Commissioner, Cachar claiming hersel f as the owner/proprietor of the said agency. Knowing the aforesaid fact, the pe titioners approached the respondents on several occasions raising their claim. T hey also submitted a representation on 06.5.2010 (Annexure-8 to the writ petitio n) to the respondent No.1, but till date the respondent No.1 did neither dispose of the aforesaid representation nor inform anything to the petitioners. Hence t his writ petition. Heard Mr. IH Barbhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mrs. HM Phukan, learned Govt. Advocate, who has entered appearance and accepted notice on behal f of the State respondents at the motion stage. Considering the nature of the dispute involved in the writ petition and as agree d to by the learned counsel for the parties, particularly the learned Govt. Advo cate, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the motion stage. When the matter is taken up for final disposal, learned counsel of both sides wo uld contend that the entire writ petition can be disposed of only with a simple direction to the respondent No.1 to dispose of the representation of the petitio ners dated 06.5.2010 (Annexure-8 to the writ petition) within a particular perio d by a reasoned order. Upon going through the records, it is not clear to this court how the respondent No.6 is claiming the ownership of the S.K. oil agency run by the petitioners on the basis of a valid licence. However, in absence of the respondent No.6, it wo uld not be proper for this court to make any observation which would affect her interest. Therefore, it would meet justice if the writ petition is disposed of w ith a direction to the respondent No.1, the Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Foo d, Civil Supplies & Consumer Affairs Department, Govt. of Assam to consider the representation of the petitioners (Annexure-8 to the writ petition) and dispose of the same by a reasoned order within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order. Order accordingly. At the time of disposal of the representation of the petitioners, one of them ma y be heard in person by the respondent No.1 so that the petitioners can raise th eir grievance in detail. If any order has to be passed affecting the right of th e respondent No.6 then the respondent No.6 should also be heard by the authority . With the above observation and direction, this writ petition is disposed of.