WP(C) 3371/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE UB SAHA Heard Mr. A Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. P R oy, learned GA for the State. The instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner for quashing the order date d 04.05.2010 issued under Memo No. FGN.24/Pabha-3/PL-1/2010-12/1594-95 issued by the Conservator of Forests, Northern Assam Circle, Tezpur (Annexure-2 to the wr it petition) by which the Conservator of Forests, Northern Assam Circle informed the Divisional Forest Officer for putting the mahal into re-sale by wide public ation of the sale notice to fetch more government revenue and also to get compet itive price for mahals and the re-sale notice dated 25.05.2010 issued under Memo No. A/70/Pabha No. 3/20-10-12/2010-531-32 dated 25.05.2010 (Annexure-6 to the w rit petition) whereby further the Pabha Game Reserve Fishery No. 3 has been put to Re-Sale without canceling the tender of the present petitioner who has the hi ghest bidder. When the matter is taken up as motion Mr. Roy, learned GA in view of the order o f this Court dated 30.06.2010 placed a letter dated 22.06.2010 written by the Co nservator of Forests, Northern Assam Circle, Tezpur to the Principal Chief Conse rvator of Forests wherein it is stated that the offer of the single highest tend erer that also without proper documents was below than the last term settle valu e of Rs. 3,00,101/- and for which the authority asked the Divisional Forest Offi cer to put the mahal in question into re-sale by wide publication of the sale no tice to fetch more government revenue and also to get competitive price for the mahal. Mr. Roy also submits that in view of the aforesaid letter nothing remains for de cision by this Court in the instant writ petition as the government has the righ t to cancel the sale notice issued earlier. He finally contended that the petitioner has no right to get the settlement of t he fishery in question unless he fulfills the terms and conditions and more so f or getting more revenue government can go for resale notice. Mr. Bhattacharjee has though not objected the submission of Mr. Roy but contende d that without showing any reason and canceling the tender floated by the petiti oner the authority cannot go for issuing resale notice relating to the fishery i n question. He contended that first they have to reject the tender of the petiti oner then only they can go for resale notice. He further contended that petition er on 14.05.2010 submitted a representation to the Conservator of Forests, North ern Assam Circle, Tezpur, Assam, respondent No. 4 herein, raising all his grieva nces but the said representation has not yet been disposed of and without dispos ing the same the authority issued the notice dated 07.05.2010 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition). He further submits that the authority may not settle the fisher y in question with the present petitioner but they are bound to show the reasons for not accepting the tender of the petitioner. More so, they are bound to disp ose of the representation of the petitioner dated 14.05.2010. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties on going through the records av ailable particularly, the letter dated 22.06.2010 placed by Mr. Roy, this Court is of the considered opinion that the authority who issued the sale notice has r eserved the right for canceling the same even without showing any reason subject to they are not satisfied with the tender dropped by a citizen like the petitio ner. But at the same time, the respondent No. 3 is under an obligation to dispos e of the representation of the petitioner (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) as a citizen has the right to know why his tender is not accepted by the authority and what prompted the authority for going for re-sale notice. This Court is of the further opinion that it would meet justice if the instant w rit petition is disposed of with a simple direction to the respondent No. 4, Con servator of Forests, Northern Assam Circle, Texpur to dispose of the representat ion of the petitioner dated 14.05.2010 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) by a re asoned order within a particular period. Accordingly, the respondent No. 4 is directed to dispose of the representation o f the petitioner dated 14.05.2010 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) by a reasone d order within a period of 10 (ten) days from the date of receipt of the certifi ed copy of this order along with the copy of the writ petition. Till the disposal of the representation of the petitioner, the authority should not finalize the tender, if any, submitted on the basis of the resale notice, if not already settled by this time. Petitioner is also directed to furnish a copy of this order along with a copy of the writ petition to the respondent No. 4 within a period of 07 (seven) days fr om today. It is made clear that if the copy of this order along with a copy of the writ pe tition is not filed within 07 (seven) days, the respondents are at liberty to ta ke any decision, in accordance with law. With the aforesaid order, the instant writ petition is disposed of.