WP(C) 3045/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY Heard Mr. G. Islam, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. P. Roy, learned State counsel appearing for the respondents. The petitioner by the present petition has challenged the NIT dated 28.0 4.2011 issued by the Panchayat authority for settlement of Sonai Goat Market (we ekly), on the ground that though he filed the applications dated 21.05.2011 and 08.06.2011 for extension of the period of lease in respect of the said market, t he said applications have not been disposed of and instead the authority is proc eeding with the process for settlement of the market. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during the period of settlement in the Panchayat year 2010-11, the petitioner suffered loss because of the erosion of a part of the market by river Barak and also the obstruction p ut by the local club, for which he filed two applications for extension of the p eriod of lease. According to the learned counsel, the respondent authority witho ut considering such applications has proceeded with the settlement process of th e aforesaid market. Mr. Roy, learned State counsel appearing for the respondents, on the oth er hand, has submitted that under the Assam Panchayat Act there is no provision for extension of the period of lease and markets have to be settled by tender sy stem for each Panchayat year commencing from 1st July of each year. The learned State counsel further submits that at the most the petitioner may seek remission of the kist money or refund of kist money subject to fulfillment of the conditi ons stipulated under Rule 49 of the Assam Panchayat (Financial) Rules, 2002. The Assam Panchayat Act provides for settlement of the market by tender system in each Panchayat year. There is no provision for extension of the period of lease in the said Act. The petitioner, therefore, cannot claim consideration of the applications filed by him for extension of the period of lease, in the a bsence of any provision for such extension in the Act. Hence the ground on which the NIT has been challenged is not sustainable in law. However, it would not preclude the petitioner from filing any appropriat e application before the Government for remission and/or refund of the kist mone y, if so advised, subject to fulfillment of the condition stipulated under Rule 49 of the Assam Panchayat (Financial) Rules, 2002 and in the event such applicat ion is filed, the same shall be considered and disposed of by the authority. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.