WP(C) 79/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE C.R. SARMA Heard Mr. S.S. Dey, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner . Also heard Mr. U.K. Saikia, learned counsel appearing for State Respondent No. 1 and Mr. A.K. Bhuyan, learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 2,3 and 4. The Executive Engineer, I.W.T. Division, Dibrugarh, Assam issued notific ation inviting tender for settlement of Neemati-Kamalabari Ferry Service on leas e for the year 2009-2010 under the terms and conditions as mentioned in the NIT dated 19.1.2009. Accordingly the writ petitioner, as one of the tenderers, submi tted his tender for settlement of the said ferry service. Subsequently, the said NIT was superseded by another NIT issued on 27.5.2009. Before the settlement of the said ferry service on the basis of the second NIT the sitting lessee challe nged it. The petitioner by filing writ petition 2162/2009 challenged the issuanc e of the second NIT. This court by judgment and order dated 20.8.09 passed in WP (C) No. 2162/09declared the second NIT as inoperative and directed the responden t to proceed with the settlement of the Ferry Service on the basis of the 1st NI T. Accordingly the Ferry Service was settled with the petitioner, who was the el igible bidder. Before the petitioner could take over the possession of the ferry service, one of the bidders of the Second NIT namely Sri Diganta Dutta preferre d a writ appeal being writ appeal No. 259/09 challenging the judgment and order dated 20.08.2009 passed by this Court. By order dated 8.9.09 a Division Bench o f this Court passed an interim order as follows :- We are of the view that while the appeal itself should be heard at an e arly date, if the possession of the Ferry has not been handed over to the respon dent No. 7 till the morning of today, the Ferry Service in question shall be run departmentally. In doing so, the Department may entrust the work to any eligibl e person out of the persons who have sub mitted tenders in response to both the NITs i.e. the NIT dated 19.1.20099 and the NIT dated 27.5.2009. Subsequently, the appellant prayed for withdrawal of the said writ appea l and accordingly by order dated 27.10.09 the appeal was closed on withdrawal. A fter the withdrawal of the said appeal, the department handed over possession of the Ferry Service to the present petitioner on 12.11.2009 and since then, it is stated, the petitioner has been running the Ferry Service after paying the enti re kist money. Subsequently, the department issued Tender Notice for settlement of the said Ferry Service for the year 2010-11. In the said Tender notice it was mentioned that the Tender will be received up to 2.00 p.m. on 7th January, 2010 and will be opened on the same day at 3.00 p.m. Subsequent to the issuance of t he said Tender Notice i.e. 24.12.2009 and 4.10.2010 the present lessee i.e. the petitioner submitted two representations before the respondent No. 1 for direct ly settling the Ferry Service with the petitioner for the period 2010-11 under t he provision of Rule 4 (2) Inland Water Transport Department (Control and Manage ment of Ferries) Rules, 1968. In the said representation it was mentioned that as per the NIT the petitioner was entitled to run this Ferry Service for the en tire period w.e.f. 1.4.09 to 31.3.2010, but in view of the litigation the petiti oner could take over the Ferry Service only on 12.11.2009 in spite of paying the kist money amounting to Rs. 65,00,100/- (Rupees sixty five lacs one hundred) on ly for the entire period i.e. from 1.4.2009 to 31.3.2010. In the writ petition it is contended that the respondent, in spite of receipt of the said representat ion failed to dispose of the same and thus proceeded to settle the Ferry Service on the basis of the fresh Tender Notice, causing prejudice to the petitioner. Having heard the learned counsels for both the sides and on perusal of t he entire matter, I am of the considered opinion that the respondent authority should dispose of the representations submitted by the petitioner before proceed ing with the final settlement of the Ferry Service on the basis of the fresh ten der notice. Under the facts and circumstances of this case, this writ petition i s disposed of directing the respondent to dispose of the representation submitte d by the petitioner at the earliest. It is further directed that the respondent shall be at liberty to proceed with the settlement process, but final settlement shall not be made before disposing the representation submitted by the petition er. With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of.