1. This case was heard on 3rd December, 2014 and today is fixed for delivery of order. 2. Accordingly, the order is dictated in the open Court. 3. Heard Mr. R Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. N Sharma, learned Standing counsel, Education (Elementary) Department, Assam. Also heard Mr. G Goswami, learned Standing counsel, Axom Sarba Sikhsha Abhijan Mission (SSA) and Mr. R Ali, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.6. 4. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner seeks quashing of order dated 11th December, 2012 passed by the respondent No.2 declaring the school of respondent No.6 as the genuine school. Further petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to consider the enquiry report submitted by the Block Elementary Education Officer, Lakhipur and thereafter to pass fresh order. 5. Issue raised in this writ petition relates to the controversy as to which of the two (2) schools belonging to the petitioner and respondent No.6 is the genuine school so that consequential benefits may be granted to the deserving school. 6. The controversy and consequential dispute has arisen because the name of the two (2) schools is identical i.e., Sonalurtol M.E. Madrassa, one represented by the petitioner Moniruz Zaman as Headmaster and the other represented by Fozlur Rahman. 7. The intensity of the dispute is such as it has already given rise to a series of litigation in the past. Ultimately, two (2) writ petitions came to be filed, one by respondent No.6 i.e., WP(C) No.6480/2011 and the other by the petitioner i.e., WP(C) No.55/2011. Both the writ petitions were heard together by this Court and disposed of by a common order dated 20th March, 2012. The Director of Elementary Education, Assam was directed to decide the issue afresh by conducting a fresh enquiry and after hearing all the concerned parties. Following the said order, the impugned order dated 11th December, 2012 was passed. 8. Hence the writ petition. 9. This Court by order dated 21st March, 2013 while issuing notice passed an interim order staying the operation of the impugned order dated 11th December, 2012. 10. The Director of Elementary Education has filed affidavit. It is stated that as per the joint inspection report, Moniruz Zaman representing the petitioner school is not the Headmaster of the genuine Sonalurtol ME Madrassa. 10. The Director of Elementary Education has filed affidavit. It is stated that as per the joint inspection report, Moniruz Zaman representing the petitioner school is not the Headmaster of the genuine Sonalurtol ME Madrassa. Fozlur Rahman is the Headmaster of the Sonalurtol ME Madrassa and is presently discharging duties as Headmaster. The school headed by Fozlur Rahman had the DISE Code No.0217708 which is now renumbered as 18030217708. Additional Deputy Commissioner, Goalpara vide letter dated 14th June, 2010 had asked the District Elementary Education Officer, Goalpara to make enquiry in respect of the complaint as to which among the two schools is genuine. The said authority alongwith Block Elementary Education Officer, Lakhipur made a joint inspection on 14th August, 2010 and as per their inspection report, Moniruz Zaman was not found in the school but Fozlur Rahman was found in the school alongwith other staff. It was found that the school headed by Fozlur Rahman is the genuine school. The school is still running at the original place where it was established. Moniruz Zaman had filed civil suit in the Court of Munsiff No.1 at Goalpara being Title Suit No.100/2010 on the same issue. The Title Suit was dismissed on 6th April, 2011. Petitioner has not mentioned about the institution and dismissal of the Title Suit which amounts to suppression of materials facts. The Director has denied holding of any special enquiry by the Block Elementary Education Officer, Lakhipur. No DISE Code was granted to the petitioner but it was granted to respondent No.6 for the years 2010-11 and 2011-12. 11. Respondent No.6 has filed affidavit asserting that the school headed by Fozlur Rahman is the genuine school and that the school of the petitioner is a fake one. School of the petitioner does not have DISE data. The DISE Code mentioned by the petitioner actually belongs to the school of respondent No.6. So called enquiry report of the Block Elementary Education Officer dated 25th April, 2012 is without any authority and based on incorrect information. Nobody had authorized the Block Elementary Education Officer to make such an inspection and to submit report. 12. Respondent No.6 has also filed further affidavit reiterating the contentions advanced in the counter affidavit. So called enquiry report of the Block Elementary Education Officer dated 25th April, 2012 is without any authority and based on incorrect information. Nobody had authorized the Block Elementary Education Officer to make such an inspection and to submit report. 12. Respondent No.6 has also filed further affidavit reiterating the contentions advanced in the counter affidavit. It is asserted that the District Elementary Education Officer, Goalpara had submitted status report dated 16-09-2013 before the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Goalpara as per the latter's instruction dated 09-09-2013 regarding the school in question and he has given clear finding that the school headed by respondent No.6 is the genuine school. Petitioner has suppressed the aforesaid status report dated 16th September, 2013. 13. In his reply affidavit petitioner has reiterated the contentions advanced in the writ petition and states that the joint report of the District Elementary Education Officer, Goalpara and Block Elementary Education Officer, Lakhipur does not depict the correct picture. Fresh enquiry is called for, particularly in view of the report dated 25th April 2012 of the Block Elementary Education Officer, Lakhipur. 14. Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Director of Elementary Education did not take into consideration the relevant materials while passing the impugned order dated 11th December, 2012 particularly the report of the Block Elementary Education Officer dated 25-04-2014 and the same has therefore vitiated the finding given by the Director. Therefore, the matter should be remanded back to the Director for a decision afresh. 15. Submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner has been strongly opposed by the learned counsel for the respondents. They have submitted that the matter has been enquired into and after hearing all concerned, the impugned order has been passed. Enquiry and scrutiny cannot go for an indefinite period. The matter has been thoroughly enquired into and thereafter the finding has been given by the Director that school of respondent No.6 is the genuine one. No further intervention is called for. 16. To appreciate the rival submissions, the impugned order dated 11th December, 2012 may be referred to. For the sake of convenience, the same is quoted hereunder in its entirety: “Perused the Hon'ble High Court order dtd. 20/03/2012 in WP(C) No.55/2011 and in WP(C) No.6480/2011. The dispute is whether the school headed by Fazlur Rahman or by Moniruz Zaman is the real school. 17. For the sake of convenience, the same is quoted hereunder in its entirety: “Perused the Hon'ble High Court order dtd. 20/03/2012 in WP(C) No.55/2011 and in WP(C) No.6480/2011. The dispute is whether the school headed by Fazlur Rahman or by Moniruz Zaman is the real school. 17. The statements recorded during hearing on 21/04/2012 from Fazlur Rahman petitioner of the WP(C) No.6480/2011. District Elementary Education Officer Goalpara, the respondent No.4, Block Elementary Education Officer, Lakhipur, Respondent No.5, Moniruz Zaman respondent No.6, Saiful Islam, respondent No.7, Nur Boksho Ali, respondent No.9, Jainal Abedin, respondent No.10, Beauty Begum, respondent No.11, Abdur Rahman respondent No. 12. 18. The respondent No.8 Al Mazad Hussain and respondent No.13, Majibur Rahman were not present at the time of hearing. 19. As per the statement of Fazlur Rahman, the petitioner of WP(C) No.6480/2011, the school was established w.e.f., 1986 with Md. Atowar Rahman as H.M. and Mazibur Rahman as the secretary. The school was able to get recognition w.e.f 01/01/2005. In 1992 the school got 3 bigha 2 katha 4 lecha from one Hasan Uddin and transfer has been made in the name of secretary, Sonalurtal MEM in 2002. A savings Bank Account was also opened in the Chunari Branch of SBI under the No. C&1/04/71 on 27/02/1992. 20. The original Headmaster, Md. Atowar Rahman left the school by handing over the charge of the Headmaster to Fazlur Rahman on 1989. 21. After recognition of the school, the Headmaster had though tried to obtain documents of the school but could not obtain from Mazibur Rahman, the then secretary of the school. As reported by Fazlur Rahman, Sri Mazibur Rahman had verbally informed that the documents were washed away in the flood of 2008. Finding no way out he had filed case Goalpara district court under C.R. No.568/2008 and in enquiry report of police documents are reported to be washed away by the flood. 22. As per statement of Moniruz Zaman it is seen that the school was reestablished on 11/07/2003 and a new set of teachers were appointed on 21/08/2003 by the school Managing Committee and Moniruz Zaman was appointed on 21/09/2005 as H.M. Beauty Begum was appointed on 16/08/2006 and Monirul Islam on 06/02/2007. 23. The school was recognized w.e.f., 01/01/2005 when Moniruz Zaman was not appointed as Headmaster, some other must be working as Headmaster as without Headmaster the school cannot be recognized. 23. The school was recognized w.e.f., 01/01/2005 when Moniruz Zaman was not appointed as Headmaster, some other must be working as Headmaster as without Headmaster the school cannot be recognized. Moreover in the so called statement of the District Elementary Education Officer, Date of establishment of the school had been shown as 01/03/86 and date of permission as 26/02/92. 24. Further the present District Elementary Education Officer Goalpara has stated that so called inspection report submitted the District Elementary Education Officer, Goalpara under No. DEG-PR 22/92/864 dtd. 01/10/2005 is a false one vide his letter No. DEG/PR-22/92/Pt/2010/695 dtd. 17/02/2011. In this connection issue numbers of other similar letter were verified and found that the issue no. of a letter regarding departmental permission/recognition of the Bhoshmarai MEM dtd. 29/03/2005 was 9898 and as such the letter in question was doubtful. 25. Again District Elementary Education Officer Goalpara, along with Block Elementary Education Officer, Lakhipur had made spot enquiry jointly on 14/08/2010 at 11 A.M to ascertain which of the two schools (1) headed by Moniruz Zaman and the other (2) headed by Fazlur Rahman was genuine one. This enquiry was made as per order of the Deputy Commissioner, Goalpara under order No. GDG/19/2009/86 Dtd. 14/06/2010. As per joint enquiry report the School Headed by Fazlur Rahman was genuine one. 26. As per statement of Hassan Uddin (Grade IV) appointed on 25/01/1986 he was appointed as grade-IV and his father donated some land to the School. 27. This is in Compliance of the order of the Hon'ble High Court dtd. 20/03/2012 in WP(C) No.55/2011 and in WPC(C) No.6480/2011.” 28. A perusal of the said order would show that the Director had recorded the submissions of various persons including the petitioner and respondent No.6 and had also consulted the record of the case. Due opportunity of hearing was given to both the sides. It is also reported that the District Elementary Education Officer, Goalpara alongwith the Block Elementary Education Officer, Lakhipur had made spot enquiry jointly on 14th August, 2010 to ascertain the genuineness of both the schools. This enquiry was conducted as per the order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 14th June, 2010. As per the joint enquiry report, the school headed by the respondent No.6 was found to be genuine one. 29. This enquiry was conducted as per the order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 14th June, 2010. As per the joint enquiry report, the school headed by the respondent No.6 was found to be genuine one. 29. Reliance has been placed by the petitioner on the report of the Block Elementary Education Officer, Lakhipur dated 25th April, 2012 (Annexure-13 to the writ petition). It is seen that the said report of the Block Elementary Education Officer is contrary to his own findings given in the earlier joint report dated 14th August, 2010. The said report dated 25-04-2012 does not indicate on what basis or on what authority the said officer had conducted the enquiry. When the Director had not authorized the Block Elementary Education Officer to conduct any enquiry and to submit report, question of considering the report of the said officer does not arise. In any case, the report dated 25th April, 2012 is totally silent about the previous joint enquiry report dated 14th August, 2010. However, the subsequent report of the District Elementary Education Officer, Goalpara dated 16-09-2013 has clinched the issue by declaring the school of respondent No.6 to be the genuine school. It is a detailed report and has taken all aspects into consideration. 30. The dispute raised in the writ petition by the petitioner is highly contentious and would involve appreciation of evidence to dislodge the finding of fact arrived at. Director of Elementary Education had already undertaken that exercise on the direction of this Court dated 20th March, 2013. Thereafter, the Director has arrived at the finding of fact that the school headed by respondent No.6 is the genuine school. On the materials available before this Court, it is not possible to disbelieve the finding of fact recorded by the Director or to arrive at a contra finding. Dispute of such nature cannot be permitted to go on for an indefinite period. 31. That being the position, this Court in exercise of the power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not inclined to embark upon a further fact finding enquiry which has already been carried out by the departmental authority. Accordingly and in the circumstances noticed above, this Court finds no merit in the challenge made to the impugned order dated 11th December, 2012. Therefore, the same is hereby rejected. 32. Interim order passed earlier stands vacated. 33. Accordingly and in the circumstances noticed above, this Court finds no merit in the challenge made to the impugned order dated 11th December, 2012. Therefore, the same is hereby rejected. 32. Interim order passed earlier stands vacated. 33. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs.