WP(C) 1532/2011 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE T.VAIPHEI Heard Mr. S. Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner and Miss K. Dutta, learned State counsel and also Mr. R.Tanti, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 an d 3. The facts of the case, briefly stated are that the petitioner wa s settled with the Borghola Kahibari Borghola Tilpukhuri (Club) Ferry Service on 21.6.2010 in terms of the NIT dated 14.12.2009 for a period of 2010-2011 w.e.f. 1.4.2010 to 31.3.2011. It is the case of the petitioner that due to several lit igations initiated by the 3rd party which also prompted him to file a writ peti tion to pursue the Ferry Service by incurring financial losses. That apart, runn ing of the Ferry Service had to be stopped from time to time due to flood, etc. Even then the petitioner was able to deposit the installments regularly to the r espondent authorities to their satisfaction. On 14.2.2011, he submitted a repres entation to the Respondent No.1 highlighting the numerous difficulties faced by him and requested him to extend the period of the Ferry Service but his reque st was not acceded to. On the other hand, the respondent Nos 1 and 2 are out to settle the Ferry Service to a third party on extraneous considerations without c onsidering his representation dated 14.2.2011. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking appropriate relief. In view of the limited prayer made by the learned counsel for th e petitioner and on considering the available materials on record , I dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 to con sider and dispose of the representation filed by the petitioner on 14.2.2011(An nexure 6 to the writ petition) for settlement by direct negotiation or otherwise and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, preferably within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. Befo re parting , I would like to make an observation that due to forthcoming assemb ly election in Assam, it would not be possible for the respondents to make fre sh settlement of the Ferry Service. If that be so, the respondents may consider allowing the petitioner to operate the Ferry Service on payment of kist money, s o that the State does not lose revenue unnecessarily. No cost.