WP(C) 2903/2009 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANIMA HAZARIKA Heard Mr. A Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R Tanti, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. A Bhuyan, learned Standing cou nsel, Transport Department. Considering the grievances raised and as agreed to by the learned counse l for the parties, this writ petition is disposed of at the motion stage itself. The petitioner’s case in brief is that the Dibrugarh-Badarpur Commercial Cargo-Cum-Passenger Ferry Service was settled in favour of her husband Shafkat Mazid. Accordingly he deposited a bid money in advance for 1(one) year amounting to Rs.2,02,555/-only in favour of the Director, Inland Water Transport Departme nt, Government of Assam, Guwahati (respondent No.2). The settlement was for the period from 15.11.2006 to 14.11.2007. Accordingly the petitioner’s husband was a llowed to operate the aforesaid ferry service and he took over the possession of the said Ferry Ghat on 14.11.2006. However, one Sri Kailash Pati Sahu filed a w rit petition being W.P(C) No.5717/2006 before this Court challenging the settlem ent order passed in favour of petitioner’s husband and in the aforesaid writ pet ition, the petitioner’s husband was impleaded as respondent No.5. This Court vid e order dated 17.11.2006 stayed the settlement of the said Ferry Ghat. As per in terim direction of this Court, the petitioner’s husband handed over the possessi on of the Ferry Ghat to the Inland Water Transport, Dibrugarh, Division. Meanwhi le during the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner’s husband died on 04 .10.2007 and in that situation, this Court while dismissing the aforesaid writ p etition vide its judgment and order dated 08.02.2008, observed that the legal he ir of Shafkat Mazid shall file an application along with proof of legal heirship before the respondent No.2 to refund the bid deposit amount. Immediately after the Court’s order the petitioner had submitted a representation before the respo ndent No.2 along with legal heir certificate for refund of the aforesaid amount. However, the said representation has not been disposed of till date. Hence the instant writ petition. In the aforesaid factual background, the limited prayer of the petitione r as submitted by Mr. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner in the instant c ase is for a direction to the respondent No.2 to dispose of the representation s ubmitted by the writ petitioner within a fixed time frame and to refund the bid amount at the earliest as the petitioner is facing great financial hardship with her two minor school going children aged about 10 years and 9 years respectivel y. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Perused the materials on reco rd. Considered the prayer so made and also upon perusal of the materials on reco rd and considering the limited prayer made by the petitioner, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2 to dispose of the representa tion so submitted by the petitioner and refund the bid amount within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The petitioner is also at liberty to submit a fresh representation along with legal heir certificate before the respondent authority No.2 as well as a c opy of the writ petition with the annexures appended thereto for doing the needf ul. This Court hope and trust that the respondent No. 2 shall do the needful and dispose of the representation as well as refund the bid amount to the petitione r which was deposited by her husband long back in 2006 itself within the aforeme ntioned time frame considering the financial hardships faced by the petitioner a long with her two minor children. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with the above direction. N o costs.