WP(C) 2459/2009 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE U B SAHA The instant writ petition is filed by the petitioners namely Md Sahibul Islam and Md Abdur Rouf for quashing the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) da ted 4.5.2009 (Annexure - IX) for settlement of Hat, Bazaar, Panghat, Fishery etc . for the year 2009-10 particularly Tukura Bazaar Weekly Market and Krishnai Fis h Market situated within the Tukura Bormohora Gaon Panchayat and also for a dire ction to allow the petitioners to collect the tolls from the said market namely, Tukura Bazaar Weekly Market till 13th July 2009 in view of the settlement order passed by the respondent Krishnai Anchalik Panchayat vide notice dated 3.7.2008 which was communicated to them on 13.7.2008. 2. I have heard Mr K P Sarma, learned senior counsel, assisted by S ri H Das, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr G Soren, learned Gov ernment Advocate for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 3. As proposed and agreed upon by the learned counsel for the parti es, the instant writ petition is taken up for disposal at the motion stage. 4. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The respondent No. 6 settled the Krishnai Fish Market and Tukura weekly Market in favour of the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 respectively vide notice dated 3.7.2008 (Annexure II to the writ petition) which was communicated to the petitioners on 13.07.2008. In view of the aforesaid notice dated 3.7.2008, the petitioners also deposited an amount of Rs. 50, 001/- each and ultimately, the a foresaid markets were settled and they were allowed to continue with the aforesa id markets. On 2.2.2009, the petitioners, by a joint application (Annexure -V), requested the respondent No. 5, the Executive Officer, Krishnai Anchalik Panchay at for extension of period of settlement order passed in favour of them for a pe riod of 45 days as they suffered loss, or to provide them the settlement order f or the year 2010 @ above 10 % of settlement amount of the year 2008-2009. As the authority i.e. respondent No.5 did not respond to the representation of the wri t petitioners they again submitted applications (Annexure - VII and Annexure - V III), requesting the authority to allow them to collect tolls for a period of 45 days extension due to the loss caused for the reasons stated in the application s, but the authority without considering their representations/ applications, is sued the impugned NIT. Hence, the writ petition. 5. Mr Sarma, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners s ubmitted that the contract was for a period of one year between the petitioners and the respondent Panchayat Samity, but they were not allowed to collect the to lls/revenue for the period of settlement. Learned Senior Counsel also submits th at the petitioners are also not asking for allowing them extension of settlement for the period of 2009 and 2010 and their whole claim is that the authority can not proceed with the NIT in question without considering the representations of the petitioners, more so when they are entitled to collect the revenue from the aforesaid markets for one calendar year as per the contract. On the other hand, Mr G Soren, learned Government Advocate, fairly submits that the authority of Pa nchayat Samity may be asked to consider the representation of the petitioner i.e . Annexures - V, VII and VIII of the writ petition within a stipulated period an d till then, the respondent Panchayat Samity may be asked not to pass any settle ment order in favour of any person with the strength of NIT in question relating to Tukura Bazaar Weekly Market and Krishnai Fish Market. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records available before this Court, this Court is of the considere d opinion that the petitioner may not be entitled to get an order of extension o f the order of settlement passed in favour of them in the previous year, but the y can surely expect that the authorities should have disposed their representati ons before taking any final decision regarding the settlement of Tukura Bazaar W eekly Market as well as Krishnai Fish Market for the year 2009 and 2010 in view of the impugned NIT (Annexure - IX), as the respondent Panchayat authority part icularly, the Executive Officer, the respondent No. 5 is duty bound to dispose t he representations of the petitioners. As this Court is not deciding the instant writ petition on merits, this Court is not discussing the other points as raise d by the learned counsel for the petitioners. According to this Court, it would meet justice if the respondent No. 5, the Executive Officer, Krishnai Anchalik P anchayat and the respondent No. 4, the Secretary, Krishnai Anchalik Panchayat ar e directed to consider the representation of the petitioners within a particular period. Accordingly, the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 are directed to dispose of the representation (Annexure V, VII and VIII) of the petitioners within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order and till then, the authority i.e . the Executive Officer, Krishnai Anchalik Panchayat shall not finalize the sett lement of Tukura Bazaar Weekly Market and Krishnai Fish Market in view of NIT in question. But it is made clear that the respondent authorities are at liberty t o proceed with the settlement process relating to other Hats, Bazaar, Panghat, F isheries etc. in view of the NIT dated 4.5.2009. 6. With the aforesaid observations and directions this writ petitio n is disposed of. However, as the instant order is passed in absence of responde nt Nos. 3 to 6 they are at liberty to approach this Court for alteration/ modifi cation and/ or cancellation of this order, if so advised.