WP(C) 4126/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B.P.KATAKEY Heard Mr A. Roshid, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr AR Sikdar, le arned counsel for the Respondent No.6; and Mr P. Roy, learned State counsel appe aring for the other Respondents. As agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition i s taken up for disposal at the motion stage itself. The petitioner in the present petition has challenged the order dated 30 th June 2010 issued by the Chief Executive Officer, Goalpara Zilla Parishad, tem porarily allowing the Respondent No.6 to manage the Sutarpara Cattle Market, fal ls within the jurisdiction of the Goalpara Zilla Parishad, for collecting tolls from the market from 1st July till the formal settlement is made under the provi sions of the Assam Panchayat Act 1994. The petitioner has also prayed for a dire ction to the Respondent authorities to settle the market for the year 2010-2011 in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after the filing of the writ petition, the NIT has been issued by the Executive Officer of the Matia Anc halik Panchayat on 2nd August 2010 for settlement of the market in question, fix ing 16th September 2010 as the last date for submission of tender. It has furthe r been submitted that since the Deputy Secretary to the Govt of Assam in the Pan chayat & Rural Development (A) Department vide communication dated 2nd July 2010 directed the Chief Executive Officer of the Goalpara Zilla Parishad to allow th e petitioner to manage the affairs of the market temporarily till the final sett lement in accordance with law is made, the Zilla Parishad may be directed to all ow the petitioner to manage the market temporarily by setting aside the order da ted 30th June 2010 issued by the Zilla Parishad. The 2nd prayer made in the writ petition for a direction to the Responde nt authorities to initiate the process of settlement of the market in question i n accordance with law requires no further consideration as the NIT dated 2nd Aug ust 2010 has already been issued. Relating to the 1st prayer, the only ground on which the interim arrangement made by the Zilla Parishad on 30th June 2010 has been challenged is that the petitioner being the ex-lessee in respect of the mar ket, he ought to have been allowed to manage the affairs of the market in terms of the communication dated 2nd July 2010. Admittedly, the Respondent No.6 was not a party to the tender process in itiated which was eventually set aside by the Court. As because the writ petitio ner was an ex-lessee that would not confer any right for claiming that he should be allowed to temporarily manage the market. The zilla parishad, keeping in vie w the interest of the market as well as the zilla parishad, has allowed the Resp ondent No.6 to temporarily mange the market till the final settlement is made. That being the position, the prayer made by the petitioner for allowing him to manage the affairs of the market temporarily cannot be accepted. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.