JUDGMENT Ran Vijai Singh,J. Heard Sri A.K.Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed with the following prayers: "1. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the District Magistrate/ District Election Officer, Gorakhpur, respondent no.3 to decide the petitioner's representation dated 8.4.2011 expeditously (Annexure no.4 to the writ petition). 2. issue any other suitable writ, order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. Award cost of the writ petition in favour of the petitioner." 3. Pursuant to the earlier order dated 10.5.2011 no counter affidavit has been filed. Learned standing counsel appearing for the State prays for some more time to file counter affidavit. Keeping in mind the nature of the relief I do not find it appropriate to keep the writ petition pending by granting some more time for filing counter affidavit. 4. In substance the petitioner appears to be aggrieved by non payment of rent for the period in which the petitioners' Institution was occupied by the two companies of Indo Tibbat Border Police. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case it is provided that in case there is any provision for payment of such rent the respondent no.3 is directed to pay the rent in accordance with law and in case there is no provision the respondent no. 3 shall pass reasoned and speaking order on the petitioners' application dated 8.4.2011. Learned counsel for the petitioner is also at liberty to file a fresh application along with the certified copy of the order of this Court. It is further observed that the entire exercise be completed within a period of six months from the date of filing of the fresh application. 5. With the aforesaid observation/direction this writ petition is disposed of.