JUDGMENT : S. Serto, J. Heard Mr. C. Lalramzauva, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr. T.J. Lalnuntluanga for the petitioner and also heard Mr. B.Deb, learned Advocate General, Mizoram who appears on behalf of the respondents. 2. The petitioner in this I.A.(C) filed a writ petition by way of PIL alleging illegal appropriation of public money out of the consolidated fund of the State in violation of Article-226(3) of the Constitution of India and in violation of standards of financial propriety as provided under Rule-21 of the General Financial Rules, 2017, and at the same time praying for quashing and setting aside the D.O letter No. CHM/VC- AB/CHMN-NIB-15/2/618, 619, 620 & 621, dated 09.02.2018, issued to the private respondents by the respondent No.3, informing that a sum of Rs. 5 crore, 4.5 crore and 4 crore each have been allotted for their respective constituencies and asking them to select NLUP beneficiaries who would get Rs. 1 lakh each under the scheme. On the day the writ petition was moved before the Division Bench which happens to exist at that time i.e. 03.08.2018, the following order was passed; "Heard Mr. C. Lalramzauva, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr. T.J. Lalnuntluanga, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Samuel Vanlalhriata Chhangte, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Alleging serious anomalies in the process adopted for disbursal of fund under the 'New Land Use Policy' (NLUP) Project, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of this PIL inter-alia alleging that due to absence of any transparent criteria for selection of beneficiaries, the official respondents are choosing beneficiaries in an arbitrary manner by depriving thousands of genuine persons who fits into the criteria for receiving benefits under the NLUP Project. It is also the submission of learned senior counsel that the respondents have acted in an unfair and discriminatory manner by leaving out as many as 6 sitting MLAs from the purview of the scheme, while including non-MLAs in the panel for selection of beneficiaries thereby acting in contravention of the regulations framed by the NLUP in this regard. By drawing the attention of this Court to the CAG report covering the years 2011-2012 and 2015-2016, Mr. By drawing the attention of this Court to the CAG report covering the years 2011-2012 and 2015-2016, Mr. C. Lalramzauva, senior counsel submits that large scale irregularities have been detected in the matter of allocation and distribution of fund under the NLUP Project and therefore, the respondents be restrained from disbursing the funds recently allocate until such time, transparent criteria for selection of beneficiaries is evolved. On a query made by us as to whether any guidelines have been framed for selection of beneficiaries, Mr. Samuel Vanlalhriata, learned Government Advocate submits that he be granted some time to obtain instructions in this matter. Issue notice returnable in 4(four) weeks. Since the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are already represented by the learned Government Advocate, no formal notice is required to sent to the said respondents. Extra copies of the writ petition be furnished to learned Government Advocate. Steps by registered post with AD for service of notice upon the respondent Nos. 4 to 41. Steps within 7 days from today. Heard on the prayer of interim relief. Considering the nature of allegations made in the writ petition and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby direct the respondents would frame guidelines based on the transparent criteria for selection of beneficiaries having due regard to the equality clause contained in Article 14 of the Constitution of India and notify the same before disbursing any fund to the beneficiaries. The State respondents shall also maintain proper account in the matter of utilization of the funds. The prayer for further interim order will be considered on the next date. Let this matter again after 4(four) weeks". On 11.09.2018, this I.A.(C) praying for an order directing the respondents not to disburse any amount of the NLUP grant to the beneficiaries who have been selected without following any guideline based on the transparent criteria for selection of beneficiaries and for any order or orders that this Court deems fit and proper was moved. As it appears in the order passed on that day, by then, the respondents had published the notification dated 27.08.2018, in the Mizoram Gazette (Extraordinary), wherein the guidelines for the implementation of the NLUP scheme are given. 3. The learned Sr. counsel, Mr. As it appears in the order passed on that day, by then, the respondents had published the notification dated 27.08.2018, in the Mizoram Gazette (Extraordinary), wherein the guidelines for the implementation of the NLUP scheme are given. 3. The learned Sr. counsel, Mr. C. Lalramzauva appearing for the petitioner submitted that the notification does not content the guidelines as directed in the order dated 03.08.2018, passed in the main case. The learned Sr. counsel thereafter, drew the attention of this Court to the D.O. letters sought to be quashed and set aside in the PIL and submitted that though the petitioner has nothing to say against the scheme but is aggrieved by the manner in which it has been implemented which is most arbitrary and discriminatory. The learned Sr. counsel further submitted that as per information received by the petitioner beneficiaries have been selected as per the recommendations of the private respondents based on their own whims but denying the most deserving persons, therefore, if any beneficiaries lists has been prepared based on the D.O. letters under challenged, the same should not be given effect to. 4. The learned Advocate General, submitted that for implementation of the NLUP, there is a manual in place wherein eligibility criteria of beneficiaries and who will select them, and also who will monitor and supervise to ensure the effective and proper implementation of the scheme or policy is provided. The learned Advocate General, had taken me through the manual particularly, to the portions where how NLUP Apex Board (State Level), NLUP Implementing Board, District Level NLUP Committee, Village Level NLUP Committee are formed and their functions are provided. The learned Advocate General, also has taken me through the Chapter-III of the Manual where the target groups under the NLUP and the non-target groups under the same policy are given. Thereafter, the learned Advocate General, submitted that selection of beneficiaries starts at the level of Village Level NLUP which ensures that deserving persons are selected. The learned Advocate General, also submitted that selection of beneficiaries and implementation of the scheme are supervised and monitored at every level, therefore, to say that beneficiaries have been selected without any proper and transparent guidelines is totally false. The learned Advocate General, also submitted that selection of beneficiaries and implementation of the scheme are supervised and monitored at every level, therefore, to say that beneficiaries have been selected without any proper and transparent guidelines is totally false. The learned Advocate General, further submitted that vide notification dated 05.10.2017, the NLUP Implementation Board had already notified the guidelines for NLUP-NEDP Convergence Scheme for Livelihood Project, however, the same was not brought to the notice of this Court when the PIL was moved and that has led to the issuance of the directions given in the order dated 03.08.2018. He also went on to submit that if the same had been brought to the notice of the Court the directions in the order dated 03.08.2018, may not have been issued. The learned Advocate General, further submitted that the same notification has been notified in the Mizoram Gazette on 27.08.2018 in a more elaborate form. The learned Advocate General, thereafter submitted that for the year 2018- 2019 no beneficiaries had been selected before the said notification was published in the Mizoram Gazette dated 27.08.2018, and those who are selected were selected after the notification was issued. He also further submitted that no beneficiary was selected based on the D.O letters under challenged, therefore, the allegations of the petitioner are baseless. The learned Advocate General, however, submitted that the D.O letters were issued without proper understanding of the scheme, therefore, they were not taken into account while selecting the beneficiaries. 5. Lastly, the learned Advocate General, by placing the copies of some local dailies which are in local language submitted that the writ petition is nothing but a political game plan keeping in view the coming Assembly Election in the State. Therefore, the same deserves to be dismissed with exemplary cost. In support of his submissions he referred to the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the following cases; (i) State of Uttaranchal versus- Balwant Singh, (2010) AIR SC 2550 (the directions issued therein). (ii) Janata Dal versus- H.S Chowdhary & Others, (1992) 4 SCC 305 , para- 108 & 109. (iii) Ekta Shakti Foundation versus- Government of NCT of Delhi, (2006) 10 SCC 337 , para-11, and (iv) Villianur Iyarkkai Padukappu Maiyam versus- Union of India & Others, (2009) 7 SCC 561 , para- 167, 168, 169 & 170. 6. Mr. C. Lalramzauva, learned Sr. (iii) Ekta Shakti Foundation versus- Government of NCT of Delhi, (2006) 10 SCC 337 , para-11, and (iv) Villianur Iyarkkai Padukappu Maiyam versus- Union of India & Others, (2009) 7 SCC 561 , para- 167, 168, 169 & 170. 6. Mr. C. Lalramzauva, learned Sr. counsel submitted that if the beneficiaries have been selected after the notification dated 27.08.2018, was issued and not based on the D.O. letters under challenged the petitioner has no objection to the same, however, he is not in agreement with the learned Advocate General that the guidelines have been framed based on transparent criteria with due regard to equality clause under the Article-14 of the Constitution of India. 7. After considering the submissions of both the learned counsels and after having perused the documents referred to, I am of the prima facie view that the guidelines were already in existence and notified and the same has been only re- notified by publishing in the Gazette on 27.08.2018 after the order dated 03.08.2018, was passed by this Court. In case, the petitioner is not satisfied with the same she can always challenged it. To ascertain as to whether the selection of beneficiaries for the year 2018- 2019 have been made after the Gazette notification was issued and also to ascertain how the beneficiaries have been selected, the learned Advocate General, was asked to produce the relevant records and he has done it in the afternoon itself. I have gone through the records and I find that selections of beneficiaries under NLUP have been done by Village Level NLUP Committees and thereafter, the District Level Committees had forwarded the select list to the State Level Implementing Committee after verification and the final approval is given thereafter by appropriate authority. I have also found that the selection process were finalized after Gazette notification was issued. I may also add here that there is no prima facie evidence showing that the selection of beneficiaries have been done on the basis of the D.O. letters under challenged. In view of the above prima facie findings, I find no reason to allow the interim prayer of the petitioner. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. List the W.P.(C) PIL No. 88/2018 after 2(two) weeks. Return back the records through the learned Government Advocate.