WP(C) 1929/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA Heard Mr. M.K. Choudhury, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. A. Bark ataki, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. M. Bhagabati and Mrs. H.M. Phukan, learned State Counsel. The matter pertains to inclusion of village Kalyahati Sundaridiya (a par t of Sundaridiya revenue village) within the territory of Barpeta Municipal Boar d. According to the petitioners, the said village ought not to have been include d within the territory of Barpeta Municipal Board as the said area falls under N o.5 Sundaridiya Gaon Panchayat; No.4 Barpeta Anchalik Panchayat; No.23 Sundaridi ya Zila Parishad in the district of Barpeta. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent No.6, it has been state d that notice was published and circulated regarding survey and assessment of ho ldings of the proposed extended area of the Municipal Board. In this connection, the respondent NO.6 has referred to the notification dated 07.04.1989 stating t hat the same was widely published in Official Gazette and was also published in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Barpeta and Barpeta Municipal Board. Subs equently, another notification dated 06.09.1995 was also published. In paragraph 9 of the counter affidavit, it has been stated thus:- That as regards the statements made in paragraph 7 of the petition the answering deponent begs to reiterate that the extension proposal of Barpeta Muni cipal Board area was already known to the public vide Government Notification da ted 06.09.1995. Moreover, the Notification No.UDD (M) 147/02/219 dated 28.12.200 4 was also published in respect of delimination of the proposed new wards. It is also submitted that the newly assessed area of Kalayahati is covered by the new ly created Ward No.13 and 14 but not by Ward No.14 alone. It is also a fact that Sri Niranjan Das, the President of Kalaya Yubak Sangha is a resident of Ward No .13. In terms of the order of this Court, the respondent No.6 has filed anot her affidavit on 07.09.2012 bringing on record the Notifications dated 06.09.199 5 and 28.12.2004, by which inclusion of contiguous areas of the Barpeta Municipa l Board, described in the schedule was notified. Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioners referring to the ward s of village Sundaridiya (Part) of Mouza Barpeta appearing after the Dag Nos. 12 4, 6218 etc appearing in the schedule of the Notification dated 06.09.1995, subm its that whole controversy has arisen because of the same. The petitioners have also filed an additional affidavit bringing on reco rds the voter list of Panchayat Election 2007, Barpeta Municipal Election 2008 a nd Panchayat Election 2012 to show that in both the voter lists some of the name s are common. In this connection, Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitio ners has referred to the names of Fanidhar Saikia and Kanchan Saikia, appearing in the Panchayat Election voter list of 2007 as well as in the Barpeta Municipal Election voter list of 2008. Again their names appeared in the Panchayat Electi on voter list of 2012. Referring to the said anomalies, Mr. Choudhury submits th at the matter regarding inclusion or exclusion of the village Kalyahati, a part of Sundaridiya revenue village is still not decided. However, both Mr. Bhagabati and Mrs. H.M. Phukan, learned State counsel submits that the matter was decided with the issuance of the aforesaid notification 1995 and if there is any inclus ion in both the voter lists i.e. Barpeta Municipal Voter List and Panchayat Vote r List, the same is required to be corrected. Considering the matter in its entirety, this writ petition is disposed o f directing the respondents, more particularly the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to lo ok into the aforesaid grievance of the petitioners and then to pass appropriate order taking note of all the attending facts and circumstances and in accordance with law. Let the required exercise be carried out with passing of the order as ex peditiously as possible preferably within three months.