JUDGMENT Arindam Sinha, J. - Mr. Mohapatra, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioners and submits, his clients are aggrieved by impugned letter dated 1st February, 2020 of Deputy Secretary to Government. He submits, clause II under irregularities mentioned in impugned letter says 12 beneficiaries were found ineligible as they have pucca houses of their own. He draws attention to report of enquiry made on 16th October, 2019(annexure-6). A paragraph from the report is extracted and reproduced below. 'From the random sample verification, the enquiry team comes to the conclusion that, the allegations are baseless. The beneficiary selected by the 3 member enquiry team may be considered for allotment of house under PMAY-G, 2019-20 as per guidelines.' He submits, in the circumstances, there be interference in setting aside said clause II in impugned letter. 2. Mr. Sharma, learned advocate, Additional Government Advocate appears on behalf of State. He submits, counter has been filed. He draws attention to paragraph 10 in it. The submission made therein is reproduced below. 'It is further humbly submitted that the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the opp. Parties to make verification afresh in presence of the petitioners and if the petitioners are being found suitable in the process of fresh verification as per the guidelines of the PMAY (G), their cases shall be considered accordingly.' 3. In paragraph 6 of the petition there is assertion, inter alia, that after due verification made by the sub-ordinate officer deputed by the Block Development Officer (BDO), Narsinghpur, it was found that petitioners are entitled to be beneficiaries for allotment under the housing scheme. In paragraph 8 thereafter, there is assertion, inter alia, that there was enquiry made by the BDO through junior officer and also by Additional Project Director (Rural Housing), District Rural Development Agency (DRDA), resulting in aforesaid report of enquiry dated 16th October, 2019. State by paragraph 6 in its counter dealt with paragraph 6 in the petition. The statements made therein indicates there may have been mistake made. 4. In circumstances aforesaid, there is no dispute on facts being that petitioners were and are entitled to the benefit. Accordingly, impugned letter, insofar as it relates to petitioners, is set aside and quashed. 5. Petitioners are to be given the benefit as per prescribed procedure, copy of which is at annexure-2 in the writ petition. 6. The writ petition is disposed of.