Order By this writ petition, the petitioner is assailing the order dated 23.07.2013 passed by the Block Development Officer & Programme Officer (MGNREGS) Selsella C&RD Block (Annexure – A9 to the writ petition) only on the ground that there was no election of the Village Employment Council (for short “VEC”) of East Phatharkata in compliance with the directions of this court in the judgment and order dated 28.05.2013 passed in WP(C) No. (SH) 128/2013 filed by the present petitioner. 2. The Deputy Commissioner & District Programme Coordinator, West Garo Hills, Meghalaya (respondent No. 2) also filed affidavit-in-opposition in the present writ petition. In para 14 of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent No. 2, it is clearly mentioned that the answering respondents could not conduct the election for a new VEC since there was no conducive atmosphere in the village with allegations and counter-allegations flying thick and fast. For easy reference, Para 14 of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent No. 2 is quoted hereunder:- “14. That the contents of paras 22 and 23 of the petition are denied. The answering respondents could not conduct the election for a new VEC since there was no conducive atmosphere in the village and allegations and counter-allegations flying thick and fast. The answering respondents accordingly had to wait for the right opportunity to conduct the election, which was duly held on 17.7.2013 and a new President and Secretary were elected by all the stake holders in the VEC.” 3. Mr. N.D. Chullai, learned Senior GA also fairly admits that there is a gulp of difference between “selection” and “election”. This court vide order dated 28.05.2013 passed in WP(C) No. (SH) 128/2013 had directed the respondents to conduct a fresh election for the post of Secretary, VEC East Patharkata within a period of 1 (one) month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment and order. 4. The impugned order dated 23.07.2013 issued by the respondent No. 3 is in clear violation of the directions of this Court in the judgment and order dated 28.05.2013. However, this Court is not taking up contempt proceedings as an assurance has been made by Mr. N.D. Chullai, learned Senior GA appearing for the respondents that the election of the VEC of East Patharkata will be held in compliance with the directions of this Court in the judgment and order dated 28.05.2013. 5. However, this Court is not taking up contempt proceedings as an assurance has been made by Mr. N.D. Chullai, learned Senior GA appearing for the respondents that the election of the VEC of East Patharkata will be held in compliance with the directions of this Court in the judgment and order dated 28.05.2013. 5. In these circumstances, the court is not taking up contempt proceedings against the concerned authority and however, as assured by Mr. N.D. Chullai, learned Senior GA appearing for the respondents, further 2 (two) months time is granted for conducting the fresh election of the VEC, East Patharkata in pursuance of the directions of this Court in judgment and order dated 28.05.2013. The impugned order dated 23.07.2013 passed by the respondent No. 3 is hereby quashed. In the interest of the East Patharkata Village, the respondent No. 2, i.e. the Deputy Commissioner & District Programme Coordinator, West Garo Hills shall look after the affairs of the VEC, East Patharkata till the election is held in pursuance of the directions of this Court in judgment and order dated 28.05.2013. 6. However, it is cautioned that the official respondents should not take up any action in violation of the directions of this Court in the judgment and order dated 28.05.2013 and also in this judgment and order. 7. With the above observations and directions, this writ petition is allowed.