WP(C) 1459/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE I.A. ANSARI Heard Mr. S. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Mr. P.N. Goswami, learned counsel, for the State respondents. Heard also Mr. AM Barbhuiya, learned counsel, for the respondent No.4. This writ petition, made under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, raises, in substance, a dispute as to whether the petitioner Madrassa, namely, Balichar i Shampur Pre-Senior Madrassa, which the petitioner No.2 herein represents, is t he real Balichari Shampur Pre-Senior Madrassa. The controversy, raised in this writ petition, can be briefly summarized as unde r: Respondent No.2, namely, Director, Madrassa Education, Assam, issued a letter, d ated 19.07.2010 (Annexure 3 to the writ petition), directing respondent No.3, na mely, District Elementary Education Officer, Hailakandi, to submit a detailed in spection report along with requisite particulars in respect of Balichari Shampur Pre-Senior Madrassa so as to accord departmental permission/recognition to Bal ichari Shampur Pre-Senior Madrassa. Acting upon the letter, dated 19.07.2010, an inspection report was submitted on 12.08.2010 (Annexure 4 to the writ petition) , indicating therein petitioner No.1 herein as Balichari Shampur Pre-Senior Madr assa. However, another letter was issued by respondent No.2, addressed to the re spondent No.3, whereby respondent No.3 stated to the effect, inter alia, that th e subsequent inspection, which he had carried out on the basis of a representati on, which was made, on 19.08.2010, by respondent No.4, namely, Md. Abdul Wahid C houdhury, claiming to be the headmaster of Balichari Shampur Pre-Senior Madrassa , revealed that respondent No.4 was representing the Madrassa, which shall be tr eated as Balichari Shampur Pre-Senior Madrassa. Respondent No.3, therefore, requ ested that respondent No.2 shall do the needful in the matter. Challenging the correctness of the report, dated 19.08.2011, the present writ pe tition has been filed. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the materials on record, it transpires that it is respondent No.2, namely, Director of Madrassa E ducation, Assam, who is required to primarily take a decision afresh as to wheth er the petitioner No.1 is the real Balichari Shampur Pre-Senior Madrassa or not and whether the said Madrassa had been established in the manner as the petition er No.2 claims or is it the Madrassa, which respondent No.4 claims to represent, which is the real one. In this regard, it may be noted that Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that whatever decision is rendered by respo ndent No.2, the same would be agreeable to the petitioners. Considering the matter in its entirety and in the interest of justice, this writ petition is disposed of with direction to respondent No.2, namely, Director of Madrassa Education, Assam, to hold necessary enquiry and cause, if necessary, su ch enquiry to be conducted as may be deemed necessary by him and, then, pass app ropriate order(s) in the matter after according opportunity of hearing not only to the petitioners, but also to the respondent No.4. The whole exercise, so dire cted, shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receip t of a copy of this order by the respondent No.2. The petitioners may furnish to the respondent No.2, namely, Director of Madrassa Education, Assam, a certified copy of this order along with a copy of this writ petition and annexures theret o. Till the time a decision, as directed hereinbefore, is taken by the responden t No.2, no financial assistance shall be paid or disbursed to the petitioners or to respondent No.4. No order as to costs.