WP(C) 985/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA Heard Mr. S.U. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Ms. R. Chakraborty, learned Addl. Sr. Govt. Advocate. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner i.e. the Vigilance Commit tee of Baghmari Gaon Panchayat, represented by Smt. Samuda Begum, a direction ha s been prayed for to the respondents to construct the particular road under NREG A from Islampur to Mushirghop as per the report dated 3.11.2008 of the Executive Engineer, DRDA, Dhubri. Further prayer made in the writ petition is to direct t he concerned forum of the Govt. of investigate the alleged financial irregularit ies in the Baghmari Gaon Panchayat under Bilashipara Development Block. Another prayer made is to direct the State Govt. to take disciplinary action against the erring officials responsible for misappropriation of the Govt. fund. It has been alleged in the writ petition that there has been financial m isappropriation and that money was withdrawn against the names of dead persons. Another allegation made is that the respondents No. 5 & 6 issued job cards again st the elected members of Panchayat who are not the persons below poverty line. According to the petitioner, the respondent authority in the name of implementat ion of NREGA scheme has resorted to corruption and misuse of the public money fo r their personal gain. In this connection, the petitioner has referred to certai n newspaper publication. Annexure-12 series are the representations allegedly made to the Project Director, DRDA, Dhubri and the Deputy Commissioner, Dhubri. The said representa tions are dated 10.9.2010 and 23.4.2010. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent No.3, the allegations m ade in the writ petition have been denied. It has been stated that Smt. Samuda B egum, who has filed the writ petition on behalf of the Vigilance Committee of Ba ghmari G.P., although was one of the members of the said Committee but at the t ime of filling of the writ petition, she was not a member. In the affidavit, cer tain datas have been furnished. Considering the matter in its entirety, what has transpired is that the writ petition involves disputed questions of fact which cannot be gone into exer cising writ jurisdiction. That apart, the petitioner having already approached, the Departmental authorities by way of making the aforesaid representations date d 10.9.2010 and 23.4.2010 to the Project Director, DRDA and the Deputy Commissio ner, Dhubri. It will be appropriate for the said two authorities to dispose of t he representations taking into account all relevant considerations. Let the repr esentations be disposed off as expeditiously as possible, preferably within two months. With the above directions and observations, the writ petition is dispose d off, without however, any order as to costs.