WP(C) 8823/2003 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE BP KATAKEY None appears for the petitioners. I have heard Ms Phukan, learned State counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. None appears for the respondent Nos. 4 to 7 today though the respond ent Nos. 4 to 7 have filed their affidavit-in-opposition. The petitioners, who are residents of Chamuapara Gaon Panchayat, by the present petition, have challenged the scheme prepared by the Chamuapara Goan Panchayat u nder the chairmanship of the vice president, the respondent No. 6, on 8.10.2003, for implementation of SGRY scheme (2nd Part) for the year 2002-2003, basically on the ground that under the said scheme the said Gaon Pachayat, under the presi dentship of the respondent No. 5, though adopted a resolution on 20.8.2003 ident ifying certain developmental works to be undertaken, the respondent No. 6, unila terally cancelled such resolution and identified certain other developmental wor ks to be undertaken under the aforesaid SGRY scheme on 8.10.2003. The petitioner s, therefore, have challenged the said decision of the respondent No. 6, the vic e president of the Gaon Panchayat, taken on 8.10.2003, on the ground that he has no power and authority to alter the decision of the Gaon Panchayat taken under the presidentship of the respondent No. 5. From the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the secretary of the Gaon Panchayat, r espondent No. 7, it appears that the earlier president of the said Gaon Panchaya t, under whose presidentship resolution dated 20.8.2003, identifying certain dev elopment works to be taken, in fact was removed from the presidentship by adopti ng the resolution expressing want of confidence on the said president on 11.7.20 03 and though the said resolution was challenged in WP(C) No. 5850/2003 and an i nterim order was passed on 1.8.2003, the same was, however, vacated vide order d ated 30.9.2003 passed in Misc. case No. 1197/2003. It also appears from the said affidavit that the said president though challenged the said order dated 30.9.2 003 in the Writ Appeal, the same has also been dismissed. The secretary of the Gaon Panchayat in the affidavit has further stated on oath that as in the meeting of the Gaon Panchayat held on 20.8.2003 eight out of ten members were absent, on which date resolution identifying certain developmental works to be taken, the same was not approved by the authority and as such could not be acted upon. It has further been stated that the Gaon Panchayat, after rem oval of its president, in the meeting dated 8.10.2003 under the presidentship of the respondent No. 6, adopted resolution identifying the developmental works to be done under the SGRY scheme (2nd Part) and the same has been approved by the approving authority. The respondent No. 6 has also filed the affidavit in the same line as that of th e respondent No. 7. No affidavit-in-reply has been filed controverting such stat ements made by the respondent No. 6 and 7 in the affidavit-in-opposition. Since the developmental works identified by the Gaon Panchayat in the meeting da ted 20.8.2003 has not been approved by the authority, such resolution having bee n passed only in presence of two out of total ten members of the Gaon Panchayat and the subsequent resolution taken on 8.10.2003 under the presidentship of the vice president and the developmental works identified in such meeting having bee n approved by the competent authority, no direction can be issued to the respond ent authorities to implement the developmental works as resolved vide resolution dated 20.8.2003. For the aforesaid reasons, as reflected in the aforesaid affid avits-in-opposition filed, the identification of the developmental works to be u ndertaken, in the meeting dated 8.10.2003 of the Gaon Panchayat also cannot be i nterfered with. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. No cost.