JUDGMENT : 1. Let the affidavit of service filed in Court be kept with the record. 2. The petitioner has inter alia prayed for a direction upon the respondents to grant revalidation of enlistment to the petitioner with effect from July 17, 2017 by considering the last revalidation period upto that date and for other ancillary reliefs. 3. This writ petition has a chequered career. The petitioner had had occasion to approach this court many times before over its entitlement for revalidation in terms of the existing rules relating to enlistment of contractors. 4. In a detailed order dated July 17, 2017 the Finance Officer to the Chief Engineer has categorically mentioned that as the new rules for enlistment of contractors in Andaman Public Works Department had already been notified the revalidation of the petitioner in the form in which he had earlier applied could not be accepted. 5. The petitioner was given liberty to apply as for new enlistment in the appropriate class as per the new Enlistment of Rules of Contractors in APWD, 2017. 6. Thereafter, the petitioner filed WP No.469 of 2017 for a direction upon the respondents to accept the application for revalidation in the new form and to consider his case in terms of the amended rules of the new Rules. 7. This Court by an order dated December 18, 2017 disposed of the writ petition directing the authorities to take a decision regarding the application for revalidation of enlistment under the relevant rules provided the petitioner made an application within a period of 10 days from the date with requisite fees. In the event such application was made within the said period, the respondents were directed to decide the application on merits and in the event the authorities refused to enlist the petitioner under the amended Rules of 2017 they were directed to give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and to decide the matter impartially and in accordance with law by a reasoned order within a period of four weeks from the date of submission of forms with requisite fees. 8. Pursuant to the said order, the petitioner made an application on December 20, 2017. The petitioner contends that the period of four weeks has expired on January 16, 2018. 9. Mr. 8. Pursuant to the said order, the petitioner made an application on December 20, 2017. The petitioner contends that the period of four weeks has expired on January 16, 2018. 9. Mr. Das, the learned advocate for the petitioner, submits that in compliance of the order of this Court, as mentioned above, the respondent authorities called the petitioner for a hearing on January 05, 2018 at the chamber of the Chief Engineer, APWD which the petitioner attended. 10. It is the allegation of the petitioner, as made out in paragraph 22 of the writ petition, that at the hearing the concerned departmental authorities had given out to him that he was entitled for revalidation of enlistment, but his case could be considered for fresh enlistment provided he makes a fresh application. 11. This was followed by a representation made by the petitioner on January 08, 2018 by which the petitioner contended that he was eligible for revalidation in the class of contractors for which he applied. But, till date he has been given any provisional enlistment. 12. It appears that the petitioner has approached this Court within a week after his making last representation and even a day before the expiry of the period of four weeks as granted by this Court on December 18, 2017. This writ petition must be presumed to have been filed with undue haste and is slightly a premature one. 13. However, since the respondents have yet taken any decision pursuant to the order of this Court in WP No.469 of 2017 or at least communicated to the petitioner, I am willing to give this petition any further longevity. 14. This Court gave the liberty to the petitioner to make an application for revalidation for enlistment under the relevant rules which the petitioner did. The respondents have had given the petitioner an opportunity of being heard, but, I have been informed, till date no order has been passed by the respondents as directed by this Court. The court had specifically directed that in case the authorities refused to enlist the petitioner under the amended rules of 2017, they would give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and decide the matter impartially and by a reasoned order within four weeks from the date of submission of the forms with requisite fees. 15. The court had specifically directed that in case the authorities refused to enlist the petitioner under the amended rules of 2017, they would give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and decide the matter impartially and by a reasoned order within four weeks from the date of submission of the forms with requisite fees. 15. I dispose of this writ petition by directing the respondents to dispose of the application made by the petitioner on December 20, 2017 in accordance with law and in case they are of the view that the application for revalidation of enlistment is permissible, the authorities should dispose of the same by a reasoned order positively within a period of two weeks from the date of communication of this order. In case the respondents are of the view the application of the petitioner for revalidation can be allowed, they shall also consider whether any order in terms of Rule 19.1.4 of the new Rules of 2017 may be passed in favour of the petitioner. 16. Needless to mention, this Court has entered into the merits of the case. This order shall be construed as an expression of any opinion of the court about the validity of the application made by the petitioner or its entitlement to get enlistment revalidated. That shall be decided by the respondents strictly in accordance with the rules and the procedure laid down therefor. 17. Since this writ petition is being disposed of without calling for an affidavit, all allegations made thereof are deemed to have been denied. 18. Considering the fact that the petitioner had to approach this Court on many occasions and considering the fact that this case has a chequered career and the petitioner's application has been pending for quite some time, the authorities are directed to treat the timeframe fixed by this Court in this order to be mandatory. 19. There shall be no order as to costs. 20. Urgent certified copy of this order be supplied, if applied for, to the learned advocates for the respective parties upon compliance of usual formalities.