WP(C) 3409/2011 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA Heard Mr. S.C. Biswas, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. MJ Baruah, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 9. I have also hear d Mr. Goswami, learned SC, ASEB. By means of this writ petition the petitioner has challenged Annexure-17 communication dated 27.06.2012 addressed to the Dy. Manager, KESD, APDCL, CAZ, Kathiatoli by the Assistant General Manager, NED-I, APDCL, CAZ, Nagaon by which request was made to hand over DTRs (under IBDF scheme) to the respondent No. 9. According to the petitioner, the respondent No. 9 is not entitled to run the Ag necy as he has been removed from the petitioner’s Society as its Chairman. On the other hand, it is the case of the respondent No. 9 that the Agenc y was granted to him by the ASEB authority in his personal capacity in the name of the petitioner’s Society. Another ground urged in the writ petition is that the respondent No. 9 having been expelled from the Presidentship of the Society on the ground of ’D’ voter, the impugned letter could not have been issued. Howe ver, it appears that the Foreigners’ Tribunal has already passed an order declar ing that the respondent No. 9 is not ’D’ voter and that he is an Indian citizen. On perusal of the materials on record, it appears that the Agency was gr anted in favour of the respondent No. 9 in his individual capacity. There is no thing to show that the Agency was granted in favour of the petitioner’s Society. The said Society is also not a registered one. Mr. Goswami, learned SC, ASEB as per his telephonic instruction, submits that the Agency was granted to the respondent No. 9 in his individual capacity. The respondent No. 9 has filed Misc. Case No. 3343/2012 praying for vacation of the interim order dated 23.07.2012 by which it was provided that status quo as on the date of the order on the functioning of the DTRs allotted to the petition er NGO shall be maintained. The said interim order was passed on the basis of th e submission made that the DTRs has been allotted to the petitioner NGO. However , as indicated above, there is nothing to show that DTRs has been allotted to in the name of the Society. In view of the above, the respondent ASEB is directed to pass appropria te order taking note of all the attending facts and circumstances and in accorda nce with law. Let the order be passed as expeditiously as possible. Interim ord er passed earlier stands vacated.