WP(C) 805/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE IA ANSARI Heard Mr. IH Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. HK Barm an, learned Government Advocate, for the respondent Nos. 4 and 7. Heard also Mr. UK Goswami, learned Standing counsel, Education Department, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1, 3, 5 and 8, Mr. S Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, ASSA, for the respondent Nos. 2 and 6 and Mr. DP Chaliha, learned counsel for the resp ondent No. 9. With the help of this writ petition made under Article 226 of the Consti tution of India, the petitioner has put to challenge the selection of respondent No. 9, namely, Gunaipani ME Madrassa, Dhubri, as the appropriate school to rece ive the financial assistance during the session 2010-2011. From the pleadings of the parties on record, what transpires is that the claim o f the petitioner is that it is the petitioner, which is the appropriate school t o receive the financial assistance. This assertion is disputed and denied by the respondents. The question, therefore, is whether the petitioner is or is not th e appropriate school to receive the financial assistance and this question, as c an be clearly noticed, becomes a disputed question of fact. This question requir es taking of evidence and making of roving inquiry. In fact, the petitioner itse lf has sought for, inter alia, issuance of direction to the respondents to cause an inquiry to find out as to which one of the two is the school entitled to rec eive the financial assistance. Since the finding, which may be reached by the St ate respondents would not be acceptable to the petitioner, the remedy of the pet itioner lies in instituting appropriate suit for declaration and, if required, f or consequential relief of injunction. At any rate, therefore, this writ petitio n cannot be sustained inasmuch as it would be, in the facts and attending circum stances of the present case, not possible for this Court, while exercising power s under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to determine the disputed ques tions of fact. In the result and for the foregoing reasons, this writ petition is dismi ssed with liberty given to the petitioner to take recourse to appropriate provis ions of law for remedy of its grievances. The interim direction, passed, in this case, on 21-02-2011 and continued thereafter, shall accordingly stand vacated.