WP(C) 6019/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY Heard Mr. Atia, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. Handi que, learned State counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 5. Other respon dents are not represented despite service of notice. The petitioners by the present petition have prayed for setting aside th e list of beneficiaries under the IAY scheme prepared for the years 2007-08 and 2008-09 in respect of Kamalpur Gaon Panchayat under Kamalpur Block in the distri ct of Kamrup, Assam contending inter alia that in those lists the names of certa in beneficiaries have been included though they are not entitled to the benefit under the IAY scheme. According to the petitioners, though the list which was pr epared in terms of the guidelines issued by the Govt. of India in 2002 is still in force, where the petitioners’ names were included, they were not given the be nefit of the said scheme. Mr. Atia, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that since the lis ts pertaining the financial years 2007-08 and 2008-09 were not prepared in terms of the guidelines issued by the Govt. of India, the said lists are required to be set aside and the authority may be directed to act on the list of beneficiari es prepared in the year 2002 so that the genuine persons like the petitioners ge t the benefit of the scheme formulated by the Govt. of India. Mr. Atia, however, has submitted that the persons who were selected as beneficiaries for the years 2007-08 and 2008-09 have already been given the benefits and hence the present writ petition be disposed of directing the respondent authorities to consider th e case of the petitioners for granting the benefit under the IAY scheme pursuant to the list prepared in the year 2002. Though no affidavit-in-opposition has been filed, Mr. Handique, learned State counsel appearing for the State respondents has submitted that though the petitioners have challenged the lists pertaining to the years 2007-08 and 2008-0 9 on the ground that the persons who do not deserve the benefit of the aforesaid scheme included in the list, they have not been arrayed as the party respondent s in the writ petition. It has also been submitted that the petitioners cannot b e granted the benefit pursuant to the list prepared in the year 2002, the same b eing not in force. Mr. Handique, learned State counsel, however, has fairly submitted that the case of the petitioners would be considered under the IAY scheme and would d efinitely be granted such benefit provided they are entitled to the same in term s of the guidelines formulated by the authority concerned. The petitioners though have challenged the aforesaid lists of beneficiar ies prepared for the years 2007-08 and 2008-09 on the ground that undeserving pe rsons were selected as beneficiaries, none of them have been added as respondent in the writ proceeding. That apart the learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the benefits in terms of the said lists have already been granted to the beneficiaries identified. That being the position, the relief as claimed in the writ petition cann ot be granted. However, if the petitioners are entitled to get the benefit under IAY scheme pursuant to the list, if any, prepared in the year 2002, their cases would definitely be considered by the respondent authorities provided such list is still valid. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.