WP(C) 5554/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE T VAIPHEI Heard Mr J Sarma, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr G Soren, the lea rned Govt. Advocate appearing for all the respondents. The petitioner was settled with Gutlong sand, gravel and earth mahal by the State respondents on 03.05.2008 for a period commencing from 03.05.2008 to 02.05.2010. The Divisional Forest Officer, Sonitpur, West Divisio n, Tezpur was accordingly directed to hand over the possession of the mahal to t he petitioner, which he did accordingly. On 01.07.2008, the kist money were depo sited by the petitioner on eight occasions, the last whereof was done on 03.02.2 010. The case of the petitioner is that at the time of operating of the mahal, h e found the approach road to the extraction point un-accessible as the only wood en bridge in the said path had remain un-repaired for several years. The Divisio nal Forest Officer was intimated to this effect with a request to take up the ma tter with the Public Works Department Authority for immediate repair so as to en able him to carry out the mahal operation smoothly. The Forest Divisional Office r did not take any action to that effect and refused to issue the permits and tr ansit challan books against payment of kist money in time thereby rendering the petitioner non-functional for a period of 399 days. According to the petitioner, he has been forced not to operate the mahal due to non-issuance of permits and transit challan books in time. The petitioner also loss 57 days as possession of the mahal was handed over to him only on 01.07.2008 whereas the mahal working p eriod was to commence from 03.05.2008. This led him to file a representation to the Secretary (respondent No.1), Forest Department, Govt. of Assam, Dispur on 21 .05.2010 which is at Annexure-8 for compensating him for the loss of 399 days fo r no fault of his by granting him extension of the mahal for another two years o r to refund him the appropriate amount loss by him for non-operation of the maha l during the period. This Court’s by the Order dated 04.10.2010 had asked Mr G Soren, the learned counsel for the State respondents to obtain instructions as to what action was taken by the respondent No.1 on the aforesaid representation of the petitioner. The learned State counsel apparently did not obtain instructions, bu t submits that as the representation of the petitioner is now already with the r espondent No.1, in the fitness of things, the respondent No.1 should be asked to dispose of the representation of the petitioner within a particular time frame. It may be noted that the Chief Conservator of Forests (T ), Assam in his letter dated 31.05.2010 (Annexure-9) addressed to the respondent No.1 has favourably recommended the case of the petitioner. He has explained th erein that the petitioner had extracted 6155 cu,m of sand, 925 cu,m of gravel an d 3640 cu,m of earth out of total allotted quantity leaving a balance of 3845 cu ,m sand, 75 cu,m, gravel and earth 6360 cu,m. from the mahal operation. Therefo re, the respondent No.1 while taking a decision can take into account the afores aid recommendation of the respondent No.3. Under the circumstances, it is not necessary at this sta ge to enter into merit of the case and the writ petition is disposed of by direc ting the respondent No.1 to consider the representation of the petitioner at Ann exure-9 in accordance with law and take a final decision thereon within a period of four weeks’ from the date of receipt of this order.