WP(C) 3487/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE ANIMA HAZARIKA Heard Mr S. Borthakur, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Ms HM Phukan, learned state counsel. The petitioner herein is a present lessee in respect of Moran Khat Khati daily market. Pursuant to the notice inviting tender(NIT for short) for settlement of various ghats/markets falling within the jurisdiction of one Khowang Anchalik Pa nchayat including the Moran Khat Khati Daily Market for the period from 1.7.200 9 to 30.6.2011. The petitioner and seven others submitted their respective tende rs. The petitioner offered highest bid amounting to Rs.53,000/- but ignoring th e highest bid offered by the petitioner, the market in question was settled with one Sri Gagan Gowala whose bid amount was Rs.37,500/-. Thus being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner had approached this Court by filing the writ petition being WP(C) No. 2796/2009. This Court vide order dated 18.8.2009 staye d the impugned settlement order dated 30.6.2009 settling the market in favour o f Sri Gagan Gowala and directed the Panchayat authority to settle the market in favour of highest bidder. The petitioner being the highest bidder, has submitted the tender with all neces sary requirements mentioned in the NIT. After receipt of the order dated 18.8.20 09 passed by this Court, The Executive Officer cum Block Development Officer, Kh owang Development Block issued a letter on 31.8.2009 to the petitioner asking th e petitioner to deposit the entire kist amount i.e. Rs. 53,000/- along with 3% s tamp duty on or before 6.9.2009 and settled the market with the petitioner vide order dated 31.8.2009 and he started to run the market from 7.9.2009. The petiti oner was under the impression that as the terms of settlement was for the year 2 009 -2010, he shall continue the market from September, 2009 to September, 2010. The respondent authority, however, without any intimation put the said market on sale for a period from 1.7.2010 to 30.6.2011. Immediately after coming to kno w about the same, the petitioner submitted representations before the authority praying for allowing him to run the market for another three months, but the sa me have evoked no response. In the aforesaid background, the limited prayer of the petitioner is for a dire ction to the respondent authority to accept the representations so submitted by the petitioner and dispose of the same in accordance with law. Ms Phukan has no objection to the limited prayer so made by the petitioner. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and also taking into considera tion the grievances raised in the writ petition as well as, as agreed to by the parties, the writ petition is disposed of at the motion stage itself with a dire ction to the respondent No. 4 to accept the representations so submitted by th e petitioner and to dispose of the same in accordance with law. It is needless t o say that any order passed by the respondent authority on the aforesaid represe ntations shall be communicated to the petitioner forthwith. The petitioner may submit a fresh representation if so advised along with a cert ified copy of this order before the respondent No. 4 for doing the needful. The writ petition is accordingly stands disposed of. No costs.