WP(C) 4026/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B. P. KATAKEY Heard Mrs S.P.Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioners in WP(C) No.5438/2010 ; Mr AR Talukdar, learned counsel for the petitioners in WP(C) No.4026/ 2010; an d Mrs VL Singha, learned State counsel appearing on behalf of the official respo ndents in both the writ petitions. Both the writ petitions being related to a similar claim by two sets of persons under Indira Awas Yojana pertaining to the year 2009-2010, a scheme form ulated by Government of India, those are taken up together for hearing and dispo sal at the Order stage itself, and as agreed to by learned counsel for appearing parties. In WPC No.5438/2010, the petitioners have prayed for a direction to the respondent authorities to release the benefits under the scheme contending inter alia that on 24 July 2010 a meeting of the gram sabha was held wherein they, alo ng with others, have been selected as beneficiaries for the year 2009-2010, but the Secretary of the gram sabha, with a view to deprive them of the benefits, ha s not forwarded the resolution adopted, thereby depriving them of getting the be nefits. In WPC No.4026/2010, the petitioners have claimed that on 17 March 2010 a meeting of the gram sabha was held wherein they, along with other persons, hav e been selected as beneficiaries and the resolution though was duly forwarded to the Block Development Officer, no follow-up action has been taken, thereby depr iving them from getting the benefits under the said scheme. This position, howev er, has been denied by the writ petitioners in WPC No.5438/2010 contending that though the meeting of the gram sabha was scheduled to be held on 17 March 2010 i t was postponed to a future date, and therefore no resolution was adopted select ing any beneficiary on that date. Though no affidavit-in-opposition has been filed by any of the responden ts, Mrs VL Singha, learned State counsel, appearing for the official respondents , placing reliance on the written instruction received, has submitted that thoug h the meeting of the gram sabha was scheduled to be held on 17 March 2010, the s ame was postponed to 26 May 2010, when some resolutions were adopted. Thereafter , according to learned State counsel, a further meeting of the gram sabha was he ld on 14 July 2010, wherein some resolutions were adopted selecting the benefici aries which, however, has not been forwarded by the Secretary of the gram pancha yat to the Block Development Officer. It appears from the contentions of the petitioners in both the writ petitions, a nd learned State counsel, appearing for the official respondents, that there is a dispute as to whether any resolution was adopted by the gram sabha in its meet ings dated 17 March 2010, 26 May 2010 and 24 July 2010, wherein the beneficiarie s under the IAY were selected. While the writ petitioners in WPC No.4026/2010 ha ve claimed that the gram sabha in its meeting dated 17 March 2010 had selected t he beneficiaries, including petitioners, the writ petitioners in WPC No.5438/ 20 10 have claimed that on 17 March 2010 no resolution was adopted and the meeting was postponed to a future date and it was only in the meeting held 24 July 2010 that beneficiaries were selected by the gram sabha. Unless such disputed questio n of fact is resolved, no direction, as has been sought for in the present writ petition, can be issued. That being the position, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Deputy Commissioner, Karimganj, to scrutinize the relevant rec ords of the gram sabha and gaon panchayat and take a decision on the matter and thereafter pass orders so that the beneficiaries selected in the meeting of the gram sabha can get their benefit for the year 2009-2010 under the Indira Awash Y ojana(IAY). In case the said authority finds that no proper selection of benefic iaries was made, it is open to him to pass necessary orders directing the author ity concerned for holding a fresh meeting of the gram sabha for the purpose of s election of benefiaries. The entire exercise is directed to be completed within a period of two months from the day when a certified copy of this order is submi tted by the petitioners in either of the writ petitions before the said authorit y. Both the writ petitions are accordingly disposed of. No costs. The written instruction, as is produced by learned State counsel, is kep t on record.