The legal right of the petitioners to consideration under the IAY scheme was violated, leading to the court's direction to convene a Gram Sabha meeting to consider their entitlement to benefits.

1. Heard Mr. R.A. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Nath, learned Addl. Senior Govt. Advocate appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 9 as well as Mr. A. Matin, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 12 to 20.

2. The petitioners herein are residents of the different villages under the Hindu Block Gaon Panchayat under the Jugijan Development Block in the Nagaon district. It is stated that all the petitioners are BPL persons and they have no house to live for their shelter.

3. It is stated that earlier the names of the petitioners were included in the waiting list of Hindu Block Gaon Panchayat for the benefits under the Indira Avash Yojona (IAY) scheme. But in spite of the names being included in the waiting list, the petitioners were not given the benefit. In the present writ petition, the petitioners are aggrieved by the list of beneficiaries made for the year 2014-2015 pertaining to the Hindu Block Gaon Panchayat.

4. It is the case of the petitioners that under the guide lines of the IAY scheme, the petitioners are entitled for the benefit, but because of certain extraneous consideration involving the President of the concerned Gaon Panchayat, the names of the petitioners have not been included in the list of beneficiaries. It is also stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners that although under the guidelines, the list is required to be prepared by the Gram Sabha, but in the instant case, no such meeting of the Gram Sabha was called and the list was prepared by the president on his own.

5. On the other hand, Mr. D. Nath, learned Addl. Senior Govt. Advocate for the state respondent refers to the affidavit 12.03.2015 filed by the concerned development officer. In paragraph-7 of the said affidavit, it has been stated that the Hindu Block Gaon Panchayat had convened the Gram Sabha on 22.10.2014 for selection of IAY beneficiaries for the year 2014-2015.

It is also stated that the beneficiaries were not selected from the permanent IAY waiting list covered all wards and revenue village of the said Gaon Panchayat.

6. Accordingly, it is the stand of the Block Development Officer that the list for the year 2014-2015 which is being assailed in this writ petition had been made by following the due procedure under the guideline.

7. Mr. A. Matin, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 12 to 20, on the other hand, states that the said respondents are the beneficiaries of the list for the year 2014-2015 and in the meantime, they already received the required financial assistance and they have already utilized financial aid for construction of their respective houses.

8. In the above circumstance, it appears to this Court from the statement made by the Block development officer that apart from stating that the list was prepared by the Gaon Panchayat, nothing has been stated as to whether the case of the petitioners were given a due consideration and as to whether they are entitled to the benefits under the IAY scheme under the relevant guidelines which provides for as to what category of persons are entitled for the benefit. On the other hand, although it is an allegation of the petitioners that the list of 2014 had been illegally prepared, but upon considering the fact that the required financial assistance had already been disbursed and paid to such beneficiaries and the beneficiaries have already been utilized the amount for construction of their residential house, no fruitful purpose would be served in setting aside the said list of beneficiaries.

9. Be that as it may, as the case of the petitioners for receiving the financial assistance was not considered as per the criteria provided in the rules, this Court is of the view that the legal right that has accrued to the petitioners for their cases to be considered as per the guidelines, had been violated.

10. In such view of the matter, this Court deems it appropriate that instead of setting aside the earlier list of the year 2014-2