WP(C) 6347/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY Heard Mr. S.K. Talukdar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mrs. V.L. S inha, learned State counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 6 and Mr. A.K. Talukdar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.7 to 46. The petitioner, who is the President of Ratabari Gaon Panchayat under Du llavcherra Development Block, Karimganj, by the present petition has challenged the communication dated 29.10.2010 issued by the Project Director, District Rura l Development Agency, Karimganj, whereby and whereunder the Block Development Of ficer, Dullavcherra Development Block has been directed to release the IAY fund to the IAY beneficiaries of Ratabari Gaon Panchayat as per the selection made by the Gaon Sabha in the meeting and by observing all formalities. According to th e petitioner by the said communication the Project Director has directed the Blo ck Development Officer to undertake the selection process for selecting the bene ficiaries under the IAY scheme pertaining to the year 2009-2010, though the Gaon Sabha in the proceeding dated 17.04.2010 selected altogether 34 persons as bene ficiaries to receive the benefit under the IAY scheme. The petitioner, therefore , prays for a direction to the respondent authorities to grant the benefit under the said scheme to the persons selected in the proceeding of the Gaon Sabha hel d on 17.04.2010. The Block Development Officer, in the affidavit-in-opposition filed has disputed the claim of the petitioner about holding of the Gaon Sabha meeting on 17.04.2010. According to the Block Development Officer, the petitioner who at th e relevant point of time was absconding to avoid arrest in connection with a cri minal case, never hold any meeting of the Gaon Sabha on 17.04.2010 and as such t here is no question of preparation of the list of beneficiaries in the said meet ing. It has also been contended that the petitioner prepared a list in his house illegally without the knowledge of the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat, who was , however, subsequently forced to sign the said proceeding dated 17.04.2010. The BDO contends that since no valid meeting was held on 17.04.2010, the Project Di rector has rightly issued the direction to the BDO for selection of the benefici aries. The Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat, who is personally present before th is Court pursuant to the order dated 29.07.2011, in the affidavit-in-opposition filed on 28.07.2011 has, however, supported the petitioner. According to the Sec retary, the meeting dated 17.04.2010 was held wherein altogether 34 persons were identified as beneficiaries to receive the benefit under the IAY scheme for the year 2009-2010, which proceeding was approved in the subsequent proceeding date d 28.04.2010, wherein 6(six) women BPL card holders were also selected as benefi ciaries. It is the contention of the Secretary in the affidavit that the benefic iaries selected in the proceeding dated 17.04.2010 and 28.04.2010 are entitled t o receive the benefit under the IAY scheme. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner placing reliance on the averments made in the writ petition as well as in the affidavit filed by the Se cretary of the Gaon Panchayat, has submitted that since in the proceeding dated 17.04.2010 the Gaon Sabha has selected the beneficiaries, which proceeding was a pproved in the subsequent proceeding dated 28.04.2010, there is no question of h olding another meeting of the Gaon Sabha to select the beneficiaries as directed by the Project Director by the impugned communication dated 29.10.2010. The lea rned counsel, therefore, submits that the necessary direction may be issued to t he respondent authorities to extend the benefit of the scheme to the persons sel ected in the proceeding dated 17.04.2010. Mrs. V.L. Sinha, learned State counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 6 including the BDO and the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat, has, however, submitted that in view of the contradictory stand taken by the BDO and the Secre tary in their respective affidavits, the best course would be to convene a meeti ng of the Gaon Sabha again for the purpose of selection of the beneficiaries for the year 2009-2010 under the supervision of the BDO, as, while the Secretary ha s supported the case of the petitioner, the BDO in the affidavit has contended t hat no such meeting of the Gaon Sabha was held on 17.04.2010 to select any benef iciary. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.7 to 46 referring t o the contention of the BDO in the affidavit has submitted that no Gaon Sabha me eting having been held on 17.04.2010 there is no question of extending the benef it under the IAY scheme to the persons allegedly selected in the proceeding date d 17.04.2010. According to the learned counsel it is apparent from the statement made by the BDO in the affidavit that such list was prepared by the petitioner illegally and the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat was forced to sign the said pr oceeding though no meeting of the Gaon Sabha was held. It has also been submitte d that in the Gaon Sabha meeting dated 28.04.2010, (proceeding of which has been annexed to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the newly impleaded respondent Nos.7 to 38) 38 persons were selected to receive the benefit under the aforesaid scheme pertaining to the year 2009-2010. The learned counsel, therefore, submit s that the persons who were selected in the proceeding dated 28.04.2010, which h as been annexed to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the aforesaid respondent s, are entitled to receive the benefit under the scheme and not the persons, who were allegedly selected in the proceeding dated 17.04.2010. It appears from the aforesaid stand taken by the parties in their respec tive affidavits that while the petitioner is claiming that the list of beneficia ries was prepared in the Gaon Sabha meeting held on 17.04.2010, the newly implea ded respondent Nos.7 to 46 in the affidavit has claimed that no such meeting was held and in fact another meeting dated 28.04.2010 was held where 36 persons wer e selected as beneficiaries. The BDO in the affidavit-in-opposition filed has ta ken the stand that no meeting was held on 17.04.2010. The BDO, however, remained silent on the meeting stated to be held on 28.04.2010. The Secretary in the aff idavit filed has stated that the meeting dated 17.04.2010 was held where 34 pers ons were selected as beneficiaries. The Secretary also does not admit the holdin g of another meeting dated 28.04.2010 as projected by the private respondents in their affidavit-in-opposition. However, the Secretary has stated on oath that o n 28.04.2010 a meeting of the Gaon Sabha did held where the proceeding dated 17. 04.2010 was approved and 6(six) women beneficiaries were also selected. Since th e affidavit filed by the BDO and the Secretary are diagonally opposite and contr adicting each other, it is not possible to resolve this dispute in the writ proc eeding. It appears that because of the infighting between the two groups in the Gaon Sabha the ultimate beneficiaries are suffering as they have not been grante d the benefit under the scheme though such beneficiaries ought to have been sele cted long back, for granting the benefit pertaining to the financial year 2009-2 010. That being the position, the prayer made in the present petition for qua shing the communication dated 29.10.2010 issued by the Project Director and also for directing the respondent authorities to grant the benefit to the persons se lected in the proceeding dated 17.04.2010 cannot be accepted. To resolve the dis pute and so that the deserving persons get the benefit under the scheme, the bes t course would be to direct the BDO to convene the meeting of the Gaon Sabha of Ratabari village under Ratabari Gaon Panchayat for the purpose of selection of b eneficiaries to receive the benefit under the IAY scheme pertaining to the year 2009-2010. Ordered accordingly. The said exercise of selection of beneficiaries and release of the benefit to the selected beneficiaries is directed to be compl eted within a period of 2(two) months from today. Mr. A.K. Bora, learned counsel appearing for the newly impleaded respond ents has submitted that the Deputy Commissioner may be directed to provide secur ity so that the meeting of the Gaon Sabha can be held peacefully without any int erference from any quarter. The Deputy Commissioner shall in this regard do the needful. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.