WP(C) 2408/2009 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE U.B. SAHA The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner prayi ng for a direction to the respondents to set aside and quash the Notice Inviting Tender (in short NIT) issued Memo No. SZP 7/2009/9 dated 2.5.2009 in connectio n with the settlement of Barsala Weekly Market for the year 2009-2010. Heard Mr. S.K. Singha, learned counsel for the petitioner as wel l as Mr. G. Soren, learned Govt. Advocate, Assam. As proposes and agreed to by t he learned counsel for the parties, the instant writ petition is taken up for di sposal at the motion stage itself keeping in mind the nature and disputes involv ed in the writ petition and also the prayer made in the writ petition. Mr. Singha, learned counsel for the petitioner while supporting the contentions made in the writ petition contended that earlier the respondent No. 4 had illegally settled the Barsala Weekly Market with one Sri Sushil Malo D as for the period from 1.10.2008 to 30.6.2009, though the petitioner was the hig hest bidder and said Sri Das was the second highest bidder. The petitioner chall enged the aforesaid arbitrary action on the part of the respondent No. 4 before this Court by filing writ petition being WP(C) No. 4843/2008. This Court after h earing the learned counsel for the parties, set aside the order of settlement da ted 25.9.2008 and thereafter the respondent Zilla Parishad settled the market as stated supra with the petitioner. Due to pendency of the earlier writ petition and for other circumstances, though the market was settled with the petitioner, the petitioner could not get opportunity to run the market for the entire period . Hence the petitioner has filed representation to the President of Sonitpur Zil la Parishad (the respondent No. 4) on 3.6.2009 for extension of the settlement p eriod of Barsala Weekly Market with the petitioner again for the next term. But the said representation has not yet disposed of. Being aggrieved by the action o f the respondents, particularly the respondent No. 4, the petitioner has filed t he instant writ petition. Mr. Soren, learned Govt. Advocate submits that the Writ Court ha s no power to direct the respondents to extend the period of settlement of the m arket with the petitioner. At best, the Court can issue a direction to the respo ndents to dispose of the representation filed by the petitioner. Mr. Singha, lea rned counsel for the petitioner accepts the proposal of Mr. Soren and contended that the writ petition may be disposed of with a simple direction to the respond ent No. 4, the President, Sonitpur Zilla Parishad to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 3.6.2009 and disposed of the same with a reasoned order . Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and the after g oing through the records available, this Court is of the opinion that Writ Court cannot interfere with the decision of the settlement of the market unless there is some wrong in the decision making process and/or some arbitrariness and unfa irness in the decision. Not only that, according this Court, the submission of M r. Soren, learned Govt. Advocate has sound force. However, in view of the submis sions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the instant writ petition is disposed with a direction to dispose of the representation of the petitioner filed on 3.6.2009 with a reasoned order within one month from the date of receip t of this order. If necessary, the President of the Zilla Parishad may also prov ided an opportunity to the petitioner for his personal hearing. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of.