WP(C) 5187/2006 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY Heard Mr. D P Chaliha, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners. Als o heard Mr. G. Goswami, learned standing counsel for the Assam Sarba Siksha Abhi jan Mission (hereinafter referred to as SSA) and its authorities. Mr. S. Munir, learned standing counsel appears for the State’s Education department. By filing these writ petitions, the petitioners challenge the decision o f the Authorities of the Sarba Siksha Abhijan (SSA), Nagaon, whereby it has been decided to close down several Education Guarantee Scheme (EGS) Centres of Nagao n District. These EGS centres are popularly known as Amar Parhashali . There is no dispute that EGS Centres are to be set up only in such areas which does not have a regular school (Government/Provincialised) within a dista nce of 1.5 km, of the proposed location of the Centre. The impugned decision to close down the EGS Centres have been taken on the ground that there are regular schools functioning at a distance of less than 1.5 km from such EGS Centres. In these writ petitions we are concerned with the following EGS Centres: 1. Sonaibera Pam EGS Centre, 2. Maleka Dhing EGS Centre, 3. Maleka Dhing EGS Centre, 4. Kacharigaon EGS Centre, 5. Tubuki EGS Centre, 6. Jumarmur EGS Centre, 7. Sagunbahi EGS Centre, 8. Rangalu Sutar EGS Centre, 9. Arabari Pather EGS Centre, 10. Mikirpar EGS Centre & 11. Pub Kumergaon EGS Centre. It is contended by the learned counsels appearing for the petitioners th at the distance norms of being 1.5 K.M. away from the nearest regular school was considered at the time of setting up of the EGS Centres and the impugned decisi on to close down the centres is contended to be unwarranted, as the centres are claimed to be at a distance of more than 1.5 km from the nearest regular school. It is also contended that before the impugned directions were issued, no opportunity was afforded to the EGS Centres and accordingly it is submitted tha t the impugned decision to close down the EGS Centres is liable to be reviewed. Mr. G. Goswami, learned standing counsel for the Sarba Siksha Abhijan (S SA) on the other hand submits that the impugned directions have been issued to c lose down the EGS Centres, only because the location of the Centres did not sati sfy the distance criteria as laid down in the scheme for setting up of Amar Par hashalies , which is implemented under the Education Guarantee Scheme and it is further contended that if undeserving EGS Centres are allowed to function, the b enefit of the scheme would not reach deserving locations where there are no scho ols and there would be duplication of efforts in providing education, in the bac kward areas of the State. In view of the above contention of the learned counsels appearing for th e parties it is apparent that the EGS Centres can be allowed to operate only in such locations where no regular schools are functioning within a distance of 1.5 km. This is a matter of verification and if an inquiry is conducted with due p articipation of the concerned EGS Centres, it can be easily established as to wh ether the concerned centres is functioning, as per the distance norms prescribed under the scheme. Having regard to the interest of the beneficiaries at whom the scheme is targeted and considering the distance norms laid down under the scheme, I feel that these writ petitions should be disposed of by directing the respondents to give an opportunity to the respective writ petitioners to show that the concerne d EGS Centres have been set up and are functioning at a distance of more than 1. 5 km from a regular school. If any of the concerned Centres are not able to fulf il the distance norms, necessary action for closing down such centres may then b e taken by the respondents, after considering the show cause reply and due verif ication. The above exercise is ordered to be carried out within a period of 6 wee ks from today. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.