WP(C) 4051/2011 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE I A ANSARI The grievance of the writ petitioners, in this writ petition, is that Gehua Chal chali Jehirul Hoque MEM, with Md. Mazibur Rahman as Headmaster, is a recognized English Madrassa, but an order, dated 29.04.2011, has been passed by the respond ent No. 3, namely, District Elementary Education Officer, Nagaon, holding that G ehua Chalchali Jehirul Haque ME Madrassa, run by respondent No. 7, who is the ex -Headmaster of the said school, is the genuine and original school and is entitl ed to receive financial assistance, but the Madrassa, run by the petitioner No. 1 is not genuine and, therefore, not entitled to receive financial assistance fr om the Government. Heard Ms. D. Borgohain, learned counsel for the writ petitioners, and Mr. N. Raj khowa, learned Standing counsel, Education Department, Government of Assam, appe aring on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 6. Heard also Mr. J. C. Bora, learned c ounsel for respondent No. 7. Resisting the writ petition, it is submitted, on behalf of the respondents, th at the dispute with regard to the genuineness of the Madrassas concerned, has al ready been settled inasmuch as respondent No. 3, namely, District Elementary Edu cation Officer, Nagaon, has, after having heard the concerned Headmasters of the two Madrassas and having examined the relevant records, recorded his findings, in the order, dated 29.04.2011, that Gehua Chalchali Jehirul Hoque MEM, with Md. Abu Bakkar Siddique as Headmaster, is entitled to receive financial assistance inasmuch as this Madrassa was established in December, 1992, proposal for recogn ition of this Madrassa was submitted by the DEEO, Nagaon, and, on the basis of t he proposal of the DEEO, the Madrassa was recognized by the Director of Elementa ry Education, Assam, in the year 2008; whereas, the Gehua Chalchali Jehirul Hoqu e MEM, with Md. Mazibur Rahman as Headmaster, does not have any records pertaini ng to its opening permission, nor does this Madrassa was proposed to be recogniz ed by the concerned DEEO. Further-more, the School Inspection report, submitted by the Headmaster of this school, was, according to the respondent No. 3, also d oubtful. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties concerned, and having c onsidered the materials on record, this Court is of the view that the issues, wh ich have been raised and disputed in this writ petition, are, substantially, iss ues of facts, and such disputed questions of fact shall not be decided in a proc eeding of the present nature, made under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indi a. At the same time, since the matter relates to financial assistance, which th e Government has granted to the school, it is appropriate that the State respond ents hold requisite enquiry and determine for themselves as to whether the petit ioners’ contention is or is not sustainable. With the above end in view and in the interest of justice, this writ pet ition is disposed of with the direction to the respondent No. 2, namely, Directo r of Elementary Education, Assam, to hold an enquiry in the matter as to whether the allegations, brought by the petitioners, are sustainable or not. For this purpose, respondent No. 2 shall not only examine the relevant records, but also give reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioners as well as respondent No. 7. If felt necessary, the respondent No. 2 herein may visit the Madrassas c oncerned for the purpose of reaching a concrete finding. The whole exercise, as directed hereinabove, shall be completed within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order by the respondent No. 2 herein, namely, Director of Elementary Education, Assam. The petitioner m ay furnish to the respondent No. 2 a copy of this order along with a copy of the writ petition and annexure thereto. Whatever decision is taken, in this regard , by the respondents/authorities concerned, the same shall be communicated, in w riting, to the petitioners as well as respondent No. 7. If the petitioners/any of the petitioners feel aggrieved by the decision, which may be taken by the res pondents/authorities concerned, or by the order(s), which may be passed by the r espondents/ authorities concerned, the petitioner(s) shall remain at liberty to take recourse to appropriate provisions of law, the appropriate recourse being, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, a civil suit in a competent court. Before parting with this writ petition, it is, however, made clear that, until the time the enquiry, as directed hereinabove, is completed and a decisio n is taken in the matter and/or any order is finally passed, in this regard, no financial assistance to any of the two Madrassas, one represented by the petitio ners, and the other, represented by the respondent No. 7, shall be disbursed by the State Government.