WP(C) 1533/2011 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 Lengtisingha Santoshpur and Bartari Ferry Service on 21.6.201 0 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 litigations initiated by the 3rd party against him which also compelled him to file a writ petition to defend the Ferry Service to him he has incurred financial losses. T hat apart, running of the Ferry Service had to be stopped from time to time due to flood. Even then the petitioner has been able to deposit the installments re gularly to the respondent authorities to their satisfaction. On 10.2.2011, he su bmitted a representation to the Respondent No.1 highlighting the numerous diffi culties faced by him and requested for extension of the period of the Ferry Se rvice but his request was not acceded to. On the other hand, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are out to settle the Ferry Service to another person on extraneous con sideration without considering his representation dated 14.2.2011. Being aggri eved, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking an appropriate relief. In view of the limited prayer made by the learned counsel for th e petitioner and after considering the available materials on record , I dispo se of this writ petition with a direction to the respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 to c onsider and dispose of the representation filed by the petitioner on 14.2.2011( Annexure 6 to the writ petition) for settlement by direct negotiation or otherw ise and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, preferably within a per iod of one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. Before parting, I would like to make an observation that due to forthcoming asse mbly election in Assam, it would not be possible for the respondents to make f resh settlement of the Ferry Service. If that be so, the respondents may conside r allowing the petitioner to operate the Ferry Service on payment of kist money, so that the State does not loss revenue unnecessarily in the interregnum. No c ost.