WP(C) 5978/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE T.VAIPHEI Heard Mr. A.Bhattacharjee, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. G. Soren, learned State Counsel appearing for the State respondents. With the consent of both the counsel, this writ petition is heard today and is disposed of at the motion stage in view of the limited prayer now made b y the learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner had participated in the N.I.T dated 26.02.2010 initiated by the respondent No. 5 for sale of Pabha Game Reserve Fishery Mahal No. 3 for the year 2010-2012. In the tender process, he was apparently found to be eligib le and the highest bidder amongst the participants. However, he was not awarded the contract. Subsequently, he came to learn that the Conservator of Forests, No rthern Circle,Tezpur, respondent No. 4 directed the respondent No. 5 to put the said Mahal into re-sale. Aggrieved by this, the petitioner had approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 3371/2010. This Court by order dated 22.9.2010 dispo sed of the writ petition by directing the respondent No. 4 to consider the repre sentation filed by the petitioner and pass a speaking order within 7 days. The r espondent No. 4 in purported compliance with the order of this Court, considere d the representation of the petitioner but rejected the same on 19.10.2010.Th is led the petitioner to submit a detailed representation on 25.10.2010 to the Chief Conservator of Forests (Territorial )( respondent No. 3) seeking his inte rvention in this matter. The respondent No. 3 has not disposed of the representa tion till date which prompted the petitioner to initiate this second round of litigation for appropriate relief. The learned counsel for the petitioner drawin g my attention to the letter dated 10.10.2010 of the respondent No. 3 addressed to the respondent No. 4 in which it had been pointed out by the respondent No. 3 that the order was issued by respondent No. 4 without cancelling the earlier sale notice dated 26.2.2010 and the subsequent notice dated 5.4.2010 and that it was beyond the power of respondent No. 4 to take a decision on any tender the v alue whereof is beyond Rs. 1,00000/-. From the aforesaid letter of the responde nt No. 3 it is obvious that the procedure adopted by respondent No. 4 for re-sa le of the Mahal is in contravention of the provision of Section 8 of the Assam S ale of Forest Produce Coups and Mahals Rules, 1977.Eeven after this the responde nt No. 4 rejected the representation of the petitioner. Aggrieved by this, the p etitioner thereupon submitted his representation dated 25.10.20120 to the respon dent No. 3 ventilating his grievances and seeking his intervention. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that this representation is yet to be dispose d of by the respondent No. 3 till date. Mr. G.Soren, learned Govt. Advocate fair ly concedes that this is fit case for issuing appropriate direction to the respon dent No. 3. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned cou nsel for the rival parties and I have also examined the materials on record. I a m constrained to observe that the petitioner has been running from pillar to p ost for the last 9 months to get justice. The State respondents should have b een more sensitive in dealing with the plight of the petitioner. The responden t No. 3 should have promptly disposed of the representation and granted the r elief claimed , if warranted by the facts and circumstances of the case. Under the circumstances, in the fitness of thing, the appropriate order to be pa ssed is to direct the respondent No. 3 to dispose of the representation filed by the petitioner submitted to him on 25.10.2010 in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made by the respondent No. 4 in his letter dated 11.1 0.2010 (Annexue-10) and thereafter pass an appropriate order within a period of 3 weeks from the date of receipt of this order. This writ petition stands disposed of.