WP(C) 262/2011 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY Heard Mr. Rashid, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Talu kdar, learned Addl. Senior Govt. Advocate, Assam appearing for the respondent No s. 1 to 5. Also heard Mr. A Manaf, learned counsel for the respondent No. 7 . The name of respondent No. 6 has been struck of from the list of respond ents in view of the order dated 3.3.2011 passed in Misc. Case No. 601/2011. The petitioner, by the present petition, has challenged the initial orde r of settlement dated 5.10.2010 issued by the Chief Executive Officer, Goalpara Zila Parishad settling Sutarpara Pashu Hat in favour of the respondent No. 7 fro m 1.10.2010 and has also prayed for a direction to the respondents to settle the said market in favour of the petitioner contending inter alia that though a con dition was attached to the order dated 5.10.2010 for payment of 60% of the bid a mount offered by the respondent No. 7 within the stipulated period of time the s aid amount has not been paid thereby violating the terms and conditions of the N IT dated 2.8.2010. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner tha t since respondent No. 7 has not deposited the required amount within the time a llowed and thereby violated the terms and conditions of the NIT the settlement o rder issued in favour of the respondent No. 7 is liable to be cancelled and the petitioner’s bid being the second highest a direction may be issued to the respo ndent authorities to settle the market in favour of the petitioner for the remai ning period till 30.6.2011. The learned State counsel as well as the learned counsel appearing for t he respondent No. 7 on the other hand have submitted that the order dated 5.10.2 010 was modified by the Chief Executive Officer, Goalpara Zila Parishad vide ord er dated 27.1.2011 in view of the fact that the amount offered by the respondent No. 7 was for one year and there being only 38 weeks left up to 30.6.2011 the r espondent No. 7 was asked to deposit 50% of the amount offered being Rs. 6,63,17 2/-, which has already been paid within the time allowed. The other contention of the learned counsel for the respondents is that the said order dated 27.1.2011 has not been put to challenge by the petitioner. It appears that the initial order of settlement dated 5.10.2010 issued b y the Goalpara Zila Parishad has been modified for the reasons recorded in the s ubsequent order dated 27.1.2011. The respondent No. 7 has also deposited the amo unt required to be deposited within the time allowed. The said order dated 27.1. 2011 has not been put to challenge by the petitioner. In view of the above, the relief prayed for in the present writ petition cannot be granted. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. No cost.