WP(C) 6107/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA. Heard Mr. M.H. Choudhury, learned counsel representing the petitioner-Madrassa i n WP(C) No.6107/2010. Also heard Mr. A.R. Bhuiyan, learned counsel representing the petitioner-Madrassa involved in WP(C) No.3101/2010. Having regard to the controversy involved, both the writ petitions have been hea rd together and are being disposed of by this common order. The controversy involved in the writ petition is reflected in the order passed o n 14.3.2011, which is reproduced below :- 14.3.2011 The two Madrassas sharing the same name, one of which is managed by Md. Zakir Hu ssain as the Secretary of the Management Committee and the other managed by Md. Ramjan Ali as the President of Managing Committee, are fighting for a share of t he financial benefits, paid by the Govt. to Venture Madrassas. Mr. MK Mishra, learned standing counsel submits that a counter affidavit was fil ed on 3rd February, 2011 in WP(C) No.3101/2010 wherein the official respondents have taken the stand that the Shalpara Pre Senior Madrassa managed by Md. Zakir Hussain is the genuine Madrassa and the other one headed by Md. Ramjan Ali does not deserve the financial benefits. Mr. AR Bhuyan, learned counsel appearing for the affected Madrassa headed by Md. Ramjan Ali prays for and is granted 2 weeks time to file his rejoinder affidavi t. Accordingly, let this case be posted after 30.3.11 enclosing a copy of the depar tment’s counter affidavit, stated to have been filed on 3rd February,2011. List again on 30.3.2011. While the case of the petitioner involved in WP(C) No.6107/2010 is that the name of the petitioner appears at Sl. No.91 of Annexure-B order dated 10.2.2006, by which the Secretaries of the educational institutions named in the order were di rected to furnish the required documents, the case of the petitioner in WP(C) No .3101/2010 is that the name of the Madrassa in the said order is situated at Dhi ng. Be it stated here that the Madrassa involved in WP(C) No.6107/2010 is situa ted at Samaguri. Both the places are in the district of Nagaon. The whole cont roversy has arisen in view of the fact that the order referred to the above, doe s not name the place of the institution but only the district is disclosed. Mr. M.H. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C) No.6107/2010, by referring to the documents annexed to the writ petition submits that there cann ot be an iota of doubt that the petitioner’s institution is in the Samaguri Legi slative Assembly Constituency and that the institution is in existence for sever al years. He further submits that it is this institution, which finds mention in the Annexure-B order dated 10.2.2006. On the other hand, Mr. A.R. Bhuiyan, learned counsel appearing for the petitione r in WP(C) No.3101/2010 submits that the petitioner’s institution having been es tablished in 1997, it is this institution, which finds mention in the said order . In the counter affidavit filed by the Deputy Director of Madrassa Education, the institution involved in WP(C) No.6107/2010 has been recognized. In so far as th e institution involved in WP(C) No.3101/2010 is concerned, the stand of the Depu ty Director is that in the order mentioned above, it is the institution involved in WP(C) No.6107/2010, which finds mention and not the one involved in WP(C) No .3101/2010. Since the issue involved is one of finding of fact and this Court exercising its writ jurisdiction cannot make a roving enquiry, both the writ petitions are dis posed of directing the Deputy Director of Madrassa Education to pass a speaking order after taking a report from the Deputy Commissioner, Nagaon regarding exist ence of both the institutions. While doing so, he may also take note of the rele vant records pertaining to the order dated 10.2.2006 (Annexure-B to the writ pet ition No.6107/2010) in which, there is mention of Shalpara Pre-Senior Madrassa i n the district of Nagaon. Let the entire exercise be carried out as expeditiously as possible, but at any rate, not later than 30th June, 2011. Whatever may be the outcome of the above exercise, the same shall be communicated to the writ petitioner in this p roceeding. Till the decision is arrived at in the above manner, the interim orde r operating in these proceedings shall continue to operate.