Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/68 vs The State Of Assam And 6 Ors on 13 March, 2026
Author: Devashis Baruah
Bench: Devashis Baruah
Page No.# 1/68
GAHC010212742025
2026:GAU-AS:3725
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/5686/2025
FERDAUS RAHMAN MAZUMDER
S/O.- LATE NAZIM UDDIN MAZUMDER, R/O.- VILL.- BILPAR-DHUMKAR,
P.O.- RANGAUTI, P.S. AND DISTRICT- HAILAKANDI, ASSAM.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS
TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE
GOVT. OF ASSAM, PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6.
2:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
HAILAKANDI CUM DISTRICT ELECTION OFFICER
P.O
P.S. AND DIST. -HAILAKANDI
ASSAM.
3:THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
ALGAPUR DEVELOPMENT BLOCK
P.O- KALIBARI BAZAR
P.S. ALGAPUR
DIST. HAILAKANDI
ASSAM
4:THE SECRETARY
RANGAUTI GAON PANCHAYAT
P.O. RANGAUTI
P.S AND DIST. HAILAKANDI
ASSAM
PIN-788155.
5:THE ASSAM STATE ELECTION COMMISSION
Page No.# 2/68
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-6.
6:THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR SANSKRIT EDUCATION
ASSAM
KAHILIPARA
GUWAHATI-19.
7:MIZAJUR RAHMAN MAZUMDER
S/O.- LATE ALA UDDIN MAZUMDER
R/O. VILL. BILPAR- DHUMKAR
P.O RANGAUTI
P.S. AND DISTRICT- HAILAKANDI
ASSAM
PIN-788155
Linked Case : WP(C)/282/2026
RAFIYA BEGUM AND 3 ORS
ELECTED MEMBER FROM GROUP-1
WIFE OF KOYES UDDIN
VILLAGE- DHOLAI MOLAI PART-V
DISTRICT- HAILAKANDI
ASSAM
2: NAZIRA HYDAR
ELECTED MEMBER FROM GROUP-5
WIFE OF SAHABUDDIN BORBHUIYA
VILLAGE- DHOLAI MOLAI PART-1
DISTRICT- HAILAKANDI
ASSAM
3: NAZMIN BEGUM LASKAR
ELECTED MEMBER FROM GROUP-7
DAUGHTER OF ISMAIL UDDIN LASKAR
VILLAGE- DHOLAI MOLAI PART-V
DISTRICT-HAILAKANDI
ASSAM
4: JOYNAL ABDUL LASKAR
ELECTED MEMBER FROM GROUP-10
SON OF FAIZUL HAQUE LASKAR
Page No.# 3/68
VILLAGE- DHOLAI MOLAI PART-1
DISTRICT-HAILAKANDI
ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 8 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT.
OF ASSAM
PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT
PANJABARI
GUWAHATI-781037.
2:CHIEF ELECTORAL OFFICER
ASSAM STATE ELECTION COMMISSION
HOUSEFED COMPLEX
BELTOLA
GUWAHATI.
3:THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
HAILAKANDI
ZILLA PARISHAD
HAILAKANDI- 788151.
4:THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
LALA DEVELOPMENT BLOCK
LALA
HAILAKANDI-788163.
5:THE GAON PANCHAYAT SECRETARY
DHOLAI MOLAI GAON PANCHAYAT
DHOLAI MOLAI
KATLICEHRRA
HAILAKANDI-788161.
6:HUMADA BEGUM MAZUMDER
ELECTED MEMBER FROM GROUP-3
WIFE OF AHADUL ISLAM MAZUMDER
VILLAGE DHOLAI MOLAI PART-III
DISTRICT -HAILAKANDI
ASSAM
7:JASHIM UDDIN LASKAR
ELECTED MEMBER FROM GROUP-2
SON OF LATE IRSAD ALI LASKAR
Page No.# 4/68
VILLAGE- DHOLAI MOLAI PART-III
DISTRICT- HAILAKANDI
ASSAM
8:YEASMIN SULTANA BARBHUIYA
ELECTED MEMBER FROM GROUP-6 (PRESIDENT)
WIFE OF ABDUL HASIM MAZUMDER
VILLAGE-DHOLAI MOLAI PART-II
DISTRICT- HAILAKANDI
ASSAM
9:MONI MALA SHARMA
ELECTED MEMBER FROM GROUP-9 VICE PRESIDENT
WIFE OF NILKANTA SHARMA
VILLAGE- DHOLAI MOLAIPART-II
DISTRICT- HAILAKANDI
ASSAM
Linked Case : I.A.(Civil)/4055/2025
GULZAR HUSSAIN
SON OF AHAMMOD ALI
VILLAGE- HAHCARAGAON
P.O. HAHCHARAGAON
P.S- BHELUGURI
DIST. NAGAON
ASSAM
PIN-782126
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE
GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM
PANCHAYAT RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DISPUR
GUWAHATI- 781006
2:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
MORIGAON
P.O. P.S- MORIGAON
DIST- MORIGAON
ASSAM
PIN- 782105.
3:THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
Page No.# 5/68
MORIGAON ZILLA PARISHAD
P.O P.S MORIGAON
DISTRICT- MORIGAON
ASSAM
PIN- 782105.
4:THE CO DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
OFFICE OF THE LAHARIGHAT CO-DISTRICT
P.O P.SLAHARIGHAT
DISTRICT- MORIGAON
ASSAM
PIN-782127
5:THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
OFFICE OF THE LAHARIGHAT CO-DISTRICT
P.O P.SLAHARIGHAT
DIST- MORIGAON
ASSAM
PIN782127
6:THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
LAHARIGHAT DEVELOPMENT BLOCK
P.O P.S- LAHARIGHAT
DIST- MORIGAON
ASSAM
PIN-782127
7:THE SECRETARY
DOLOIGAON GAON PANCHAYAT
P.O- DOLOIGAON
P.SMOIRABARI
ASSAM
PIN-782126.
8:SHORIFUL ISLAM
S/O- LATE FAIZ UDDIN
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BARTHAL KACHARIGAON
P.O.- DOLOIGAON
P.S.- MOIRABARI DISTRICT- MORIGAON
ASSAM PIN-782126
-
Linked Case : WP(C)/7329/2025
MD. OSMAN GANI SK.
S/O- MD. ENNUS ALI
Page No.# 6/68
R/O- VILL.- SHALIBHULI
P.O. DHANUA
P.S. MANKACHAR
ASSAM
PIN- 783131.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS
THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM
PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-06.
2:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
SOUTH SALMARA MANKACHAR
ASSAM
3:THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
MANKACHAR ZILA PARISHAD
DIST. SOUTH SALMARA MANKACHAR
ASSAM
4:THE ASSAM STATE ELECTION COMMISSION
PANJABARI
GUWAHATI-781037.
5:MUSSTT. SHAHNAZ PARBIN
W/O- MD. SHAHIDUR ISLAM
VILL.- SHALIBHUI
P.O. DHANUA
P.S. MANKACHAR
DIST. SOUTH SALMARA MANKACHAR
ASSAM
PIN- 783131.
Linked Case : WP(C)/5773/2025
SAMSUN NAHAR
W/O ATIQUL RAHMAN
VILL- BATHAL KACHARIGAON
P.O.- DOLOIGAON
P.S.- MOIRABARI
DIST- MORIGAON
ASSAM
Page No.# 7/68
PIN-782126
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 7 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI
PIN-781006
2:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
MORIGAON
P.O. AND P.S.- MORIGAON
DIST- MORIGAON
ASSAM
PIN-782105
3:THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
MORIGAON ZILLA PARISHAD
P.O. AND P.S.- MORIGAON
ASSAM
PIN-782105
4:THE CO-DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
LAHARIGAHT CO-DISTRICT
P.O. AND P.S.- LAHARIGHAT
DIST- MORIGAON
ASSAM
PIN-782127
5:THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
OFFICE OF THE LAHARIGHAT CO-DISTRICT
P.O. AND P.S.- LAHARIGHAT
DIST- MORIGAON
ASSAM
PIN-782127
6:THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
LAAHARIGHAT DEVELOPMENT BLOCK
P.O. AND P.S.- LAHARIGHAT
DIST- MORIGAON
ASSAM
PIN-782127
7:THE SECRETARY
DOLOIGAON GAON PANCHAYAT
Page No.# 8/68
P.O.- DOLOIGAON
P.S.- MOIRABARI
DIST- MORIGAON
ASSAM
PIN-782126
8:GULZAR HUSSAIN
S/O AHAMMOD ALI
VILL- HAHCARAGAON
P.O.- HAHCHARAGAON
P.S.- BHELUGURI
DIST- NAGAON
ASSAM
PIN-782126
Linked Case : WP(C)/5815/2025
SHORIFUL ISLAM
SON OF LATE FAIZ UDDIN
VILLAGE - BARTHAL KACHARIGAON
P.O.- DOLOIGAON
P.S- MOIRABARI
DIST.- MORIGAON
ASSAM
PIN- 782126
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 7 ORS.
REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI
PIN - 781006.
2:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
MORIGAON
P.O. AND P.S- MORIGAON
DIST. MORIGAON
ASSAM
PIN - 782105
3:THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
MORIGAON ZILLA PARISHAD
P.O AND P.S- MORIGAON
DISTRICT-MORIGAON
Page No.# 9/68
ASSAM
PIN-782105
4:THE CO-DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
LAHARIGHAT CO-DISTRICT
P.O. AND P.S. LAHARIGHAT
DIST. MORIGAON
ASSAM
PIN - 782127
5:THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
OFFICE OF THE LAHARIGHAT CO-DISTRICT
P.O. AND P.S. LAHARIGHAT
DIST. MORIGAON
ASSAM
PIN -782127
6:THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
LAHARIGHAT DEVELOPMENT BLOCK
P.O. AND P.S- LAHARIGHAT
DIST. MORIGAON
ASSAM
PIN - 782127
7:THE SECRETARY
DOLOIGAON GAON PANCHAYAT
P.O. DOLOIGAON
P.S- MOIRABARI
DIST. MORIGAON
ASSAM
PIN 782126
8:GULZAR HUSSAIN
SON OF AHAMMOD ALI
VILLAGE- HAHCARAGAON
P.O. HAHCHARAGAON
P.S- BHELUGURI
DIST. NAGAON
ASSAM
PIN-782126
Linked Case : WP(C)/7257/2025
MONOWAR HUSSAIN
S/O LATE GOLAP HUSSAIN
R/O - 292 BERABHANGA PART-II
P.O- SUKCHAR
P.S- SUKCHAR
Page No.# 10/68
DISTRICT- SOUTH SALMARA
PIN-783128.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS.
REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI- 781006.
2:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
SOUTH SALMARA MANKACHAR
ASSAM
PIN-783135
3:THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
SOUTH SALMARA ZILLA PARISHAD
SOUTH SALMARA
DIST- SOUTH SALMARA- MANKACHAR
ASSAM- 783135.
4:THE SECRETARY
NO.26 SUKCHAR GAON PANCHAYAT
DIST- SOUTH SALMARA- MANKACHAR
ASSAM- 783135.
5:THE REGISTER OF BIRTHS AND DEATH
SUKCHAR MINI P.H.C
DIST- SOUTH SALMARA- MANKACHAR
ASSAM- 783135
6:THE ASSAM STATE ELECTION COMMISSION
PANJABARI
GUWAHATI-781037
7:MEHRUN NESSA
WIFE OF ABDUS SAMAD
R/O - BERABHANGA PART-II
P.O- SUKCHAR
P.S- SUKCHAR
DISTRICT- SOUTH SALMARA
PIN- 783128.
Page No.# 11/68
Linked Case : I.A.(Civil)/3931/2025
GULZAR HUSSAIN
S/O- AHAMMOD ALI
VILLAGE HAHCHARAGAON
P.O- HAHCHARAGAON
P.S- BHELUGURI
DIST- NAGAON
ASSAM
PIN-782126
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE
GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM
PANCHAYAT RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DISPUR
GUWAHATI- 781006
2:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
MORIGAON
P.O. P.S- MORIGAON
DIST- MORIGAON
ASSAM
PIN- 782105.
3:THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
MORIGAON ZILLA PARISHAD
P.O P.S MORIGAON
DISTRICT- MORIGAON
ASSAM
PIN- 782105.
4:THE CO DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
OFFICE OF THE LAHARIGHAT CO-DISTRICT
P.O P.SLAHARIGHAT
DISTRICT- MORIGAON
ASSAM
PIN-782127.
5:THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
OFFICE OF THE LAHARIGHAT CO-DISTRICT
P.O P.SLAHARIGHAT
DIST- MORIGAON
ASSAM
PIN782127.
Page No.# 12/68
6:THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
LAHARIGHAT DEVELOPMENT BLOCK
P.O P.S- LAHARIGHAT
DIST- MORIGAON
ASSAM
PIN-782127
7:THE SECRETARY
DOLOIGAON GAON PANCHAYAT
P.O- DOLOIGAON
P.SMOIRABARI
ASSAM
PIN-782126.
8:SAMSUN NAHAR
W/O- ATIQUL RAHMAN
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BARTHAL KACHARIGAON
P.O.- DOLOIGAON
P.S.- MOIRABARI DISTRICT- MORIGAON
ASSAM PIN-782126
Linked Case : WP(C)/4526/2025
ENAM UDDIN
SON OF RAJJAD ALI
R/O VILL- HULASHNAGAR
P.O. ANIPUR
P.S. RATABARI
DIST. SRIBHUMI
ASSAM
PIN-788734.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS.
REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-6.
2:THE COMMISSIONER
PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
ASSAM
Page No.# 13/68
JURIPAR
PANJABARI
GUWAHATI-37.
3:THE ASSAM STATE ELECTION COMMISSION
REPRESENTED BY ELECTION COMMISSIONER
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-6.
4:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
SRIBHUMI
P.O.
P.S. AND DIST. SRIBHUMI
ASSAM
PIN-788710.
5:THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
DULLAVCHERRA DEV. BLOCK
DULLAVCHERRA
PIN- 788736.
6:RUHELA BEGUM
W/O TAJ UDDIN
R/O VILL- HULASHNAGAR
P.O. ANIPUR
P.S. RATABARI
DIST. SRIBHUMI
ASSAM
PIN-788734
Linked Case : WP(C)/6200/2025
SOFIA BEGUM
C/O SHAJI HUSSAIN
VILLAGE-- KANDIGRAM
P.O. DASGRAM
VTC- DASGRAM
PO- DASGRAM
DISTRICT- SRIBHUMI
STATE- ASSAM
PINCODE - 788722.
VERSUS
Page No.# 14/68
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND OTHRS
REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF
ASSAM
PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI781006.
2:THE ASSAM STATE ELECTION COMMISSION
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
DISPUR
GUWAHATI 781006.
3:THE COMMISSIONER
PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PANJABARI
JURIPAR
GUWAHATI - 781037.
4:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER CUM DISTRICT RETURNING OFFICER
SRIBHUMI
P.O.- SRINHUMI
DISTRICT- SRIBHUMI
ASSAM
PIN- 788710
5:THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
NILAMBAZAR
PSNILMABAZAR
DISTRICT- SRIBHUMI
ASSAM
6:THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR SANSKRIT EDUCATION
ASSAM KAHILIPARA
GUWAHATI - 781019
7:NAMITA DEB
DAUGHTER OF LATE DEBENDRA CHANDRA DEB
VILLAGE- DASGRAM
DASGRAM
PS- NILAMBAZAR
DISTRICTSRIBHUMI
ASSAM
PIN- 788722
Page No.# 15/68
Linked Case : WP(C)/6138/2025
NURZIYA KHATUN
W/O-NURUL ISLAM VILL- KHOPATI PART -III
P.O-HAZIRHAT
P.S.- SUKHCHAR
DIST- SOUTH SALMARA-MANKACHAR
ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
PANCHAYAT RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-06.
2:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
SOUTH SALMARA
ASSAM
3:THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
SOUTH SALMARA ZILLA PARISHAD SOUTH SALMARA DIST SOUTH
SALMARA MANKACHAR ASSAM
4:THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER
FEKAMARI ANCHALIK PANCHAYAT DIST SOUTH SALMARA MANKACHAR
ASSAM
5:THE ASSAM STATE ELECTION COMMISSION PANJABARI
GUWAHATI 37
6:AJUBA KHATUN
W/O ABDUL SALAM SHAH VILL KHOPATIA PART III PO HAZIRHAT PS
SUKHCHAR DIST SOUTH SALMARA MANKACHAR ASSAM PIN 783128
Linked Case : WP(C)/6170/2025
MONOWARA TAIMUR
W/O- OSMAN GONI A RESIDENT OF VILL - CHALAKURA PARTIII
P.O. AND P.S- CHUNARI DIST.- GAOLPARA
ASSAM
VERSUS
Page No.# 16/68
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND OTHRS
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY
PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-6
2:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
GOALPARA
P.O.- BALADMARI
P.S.- GOALPARA SADAR
ASSAM
PIN783121.
3:THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
GOALPARA
DIST.- GOLAPARA
4:THE JOINT DIRECTOR
HEALTH SERVICES
GOALPARA
DIST.- GOALPARA
ASSAM
5:THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
GOALPARA ZILLA PARISHAD
DIST.- GOALPARA
ASSAM
6:THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
KAMAKHYABARI DEVELOPMENT BLOCK
KHARMUZA
P.O.- JOYBHUM
P.S.- LAKHIPUR
DIST.- GOALPARA
ASSAM.
7:THE SECRETARY
12 NO. PANCHAYAT
KALSHABHANGA ROWKHOWA KALSHABHANGA GAON P.O-ROWKHUA
DIST.- GOALPARA
ASSAM
8:FATEHA KHATUN
W/O-ABU TALEB A RESIDENT OF VILL - CHALAKURA PART-III
P.O. AND P.S.- CHUNARI
DIST.- GOALPARA
ASSAM
PIN783129
Page No.# 17/68
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. M. H. Laskar, Advocate
Ms. N. S. Thakuria, Advocate
Mr. R. Ali, Advocate
Mr. M.A.I. Hussain, Advocate
Mr. P. Mahanta, Advocate
Mr. F. E. Choudhury, Advocate
Mr. S. K. Talukdar, Advocate
Mr. S. K. Das, Advocate
Mr. A. M. Ahmed, Advocate
Mr. A. Bhatra, Advocate
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. S. Dutta, SC, P&RD
Mr. N. Das, Govt. Advocate
Mr. B. D. Das, Sr. Advocate
Mr. J. Islam, Advocate
Mr. A.B.T. Hoque, Advocate
Mr. B. K. Sen, Advocate
Mr. M. J. Quadir, Advocate
Mr. R. Dubey, SC, ASEC
Date on which judgment is reserved : NA
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 13.03.2026
Whether the pronouncement is of the
Operative part of the judgment? : NA
Whether the full judgment has been
Pronounced? : Yes
JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)
Heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the
petitioners in the instant batch of writ petitions. Mr. S. Dutta, the
Page No.# 18/68
learned Standing Counsel of the Panchayat and Rural
Development Department who appears for the said Department
and Mr. J. Handique, the learned Government Advocate who
appears on behalf of the District Administration. I have also
heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the private
respondents and Mr. R. Dubey, the learned counsel who appears
on behalf of the Assam State Election Commission.
2. It is contended before this Court by the learned counsels for
the respondents that the issue involved in the present batch of
writ petitions is covered by the decision rendered in the
judgment and order dated 23.02.2026 in the case of Aysha
Khatun vs. State of Assam and 5 Others in WP(C) No. 7351/2025,
reported in 2026:GAU-AS:2734.
3. At the outset, it is relevant to observe that the present
batch of writ petitions can be divided into two sets. One set of
writ petitions pertains to inaction on the part of the concerned
District Commissioner in taking action pursuant to information
provided by way of representations that the returned candidate
cannot be permitted to remain as a Member of the concerned
Panchayat as he/she was disqualified under Section 111 of the
Assam Panchayat Act, 1994 (for short, ‘the Act of 1994’) read
with Rule 62 of the Assam Panchayat (Constitution) Rules, 1995
(for short, ‘the Rules of 1995’). This set of writ petitions are
Page No.# 19/68
hereinafter referred to as ‘the first set of writ petitions’.
The other set of writ petitions are filed by the returned
candidates who were disqualified by the concerned District
Commissioner in exercise of powers conferred under Section 111
of the Act of 1994 read with Rule 62 of the Rules of 1995. This
set of writ petitions are hereinafter referred to as ‘the second set
of writ petitions’.
4. For deciding as to whether the issues involved in both the
sets of writ petitions are covered by the judgment and order
dated 23.02.2026 in the case of Aysha Khatun (supra), this Court
finds it relevant to take note of the brief facts which led to the
filing of the first set of writ petitions.
WP(C) No.5686/2025.
5. The Petitioner herein pursuant to a Notification dated
02.04.2025 issued by the Assam State Election Commission for
election to various posts of Panchayat in the State of Assam
submitted nomination for election to the post of Gaon Panchayat
Member of 4 No. Ward under Rangauti Gaon Panchayat. The
Respondent No.7 also submitted nomination for the election to
the post of Gaon Panchayat Member of 4 No. Ward under
Rangauti Gaon Panchayat. The election was held on 02.05.2025,
and the Petitioner lost the election by a margin of two votes
Page No.# 20/68
against the Respondent No.7. The result was declared on
11.05.2025. The Petitioner on 15.05.2025, raised objection
before the District Commissioner in so far as it relates to the
educational certificate of the Respondent No.7 and prayed for
verification of the educational certificate of the Respondent No.7
to unearth the truth regarding the veracity of the said certificate.
Thereupon, the Petitioner approached this Court by filing a writ
petition being WP(C) No.3203/2025 which was withdrawn by the
Petitioner on 11.06.2025 with a liberty to pursue alternative and
efficacious remedy.
6. The Petitioner alleges that he made various enquiries under
the Right to Information Act, 2005 and learnt that the
Respondent No.7 did not pass the Pravesika Examination in the
year 2010 and the certificate so submitted by the Respondent
No.7 was a forged and a false document. The Petitioner
thereupon submitted another representation on 26.08.2025
before the District Commissioner along with supporting
documents with a prayer to declare the Respondent No.7 is not
qualified to remain as a Gaon Panchayat Member and to remove
him from the post of Gaon Panchayat Member of 4 No. Ward
under Rangauti Gaon Panchayat. The said representation being
not considered, the Petitioner had approached this Court by filing
the writ petition.
Page No.# 21/68
7. This Court vide an order dated 24.09.2025, though issued
notice, but kept the question of maintainability of the writ
petition open.
WP(C) No.7329/2025.
8. The Petitioner herein was a candidate for ward No.14/10 of
Dhanua Gaon Panchayat South Salmara-Mankachar. He
submitted his nomination form for the post of Member from the
Ward No.14/10 of Dhanua Gaon Panchayat, South Salmara,
Mankachar. The Respondent No.5 was also a candidate. The
election was held on 07.05.2025 and the Respondent No.5 was
declared as elected Member of Ward No.14/10 of Dhanua Gaon
Panchayat on 11.05.2025. It is the allegation of the Petitioner
that the Respondent No.5 got married to one Md Shahidur Islam
on 14.10.2014 when she was only 17 years old. Her date of birth
is 22.11.1997 and she has also a child and his date of birth is
02.07.2017. It was alleged that at the time of submission of the
documents with nomination form, the Respondent No.5
concealed her age at the time of marriage and showed it as 18
years. Even in the Kabin Nama, she erased the actual age and
inserted 18 in order to overcome Section 111 (2) (f) of the Act of
1994 and Rule 62 of the Rules of 1995. The Petitioner on
09.06.2025, submitted a complaint before the District
Commissioner alleging that the Respondent No.5 got elected by
Page No.# 22/68
submitting a false document by concealing her actual age at the
time of her marriage.
9. The grievance of the Petitioner is that though the Petitioner
submitted various complaints to the District Commissioner
regarding the fraudulent participation in the election by the
Respondent No.5, but the District Commissioner did not take any
action, and it is under such circumstances, the writ petition was
filed seeking directions upon the District Commissioner, South
Salmara, Mankachar to remove the Respondent No.5 from the
post of Member from the Ward No.14/10 of Dhanua Gaon
Panchayat under Mankachar Zilla Parishad in the District of South
Salmara, Mankachar and to hold re-election for the post of
Member of Ward No.14/10 of village Dhanua Gaon Panchayat.
10. The records reveal that pursuant to the filing of the instant
writ petition, this Court issued notice vide an order dated
19.12.2025 with an observation that pendency of the writ
petition shall not be a bar for the Petitioner to file appropriate
representation before the Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat in
accordance with law.
WP(C) No.6138/2025
11. The Petitioner herein submitted her nomination paper for
the post of the member from Ward No. 5, Village-Khopati on 28
Page No.# 23/68
No. Gotabari Khopatia Gaon Panchayat under Fekamari Anchalik
Panchayat in the district of South Salmara, Mankachar. The
Respondent No.6 had also submitted her nomination. The
election was held on 07.05.2025 and the Respondent No.6 was
declared as elected as Member from Gotabari Khopatia Gaon
Panchayat on 11.05.2025.
12. It is alleged by the Petitioner that the Respondent No.6 did
not complete her H.S.L.C. examination from any High School
under SEBA, and as such, she was not eligible for submitting the
nomination paper as per Section 111(2)(b) of the Act of 1994
and Rule 62(2) of the Rules of 1995.
13. It is the further case of the Petitioner that the Petitioner
submitted a complaint on 05.09.2025 before the District
Commissioner, South Salmara, Mankachar, however, no action
was taken. It is under such circumstances, the Petitioner has
filed the instant writ petition seeking a direction upon the District
Commissioner, South Salmara to remove the Respondent No.6
from the post of the Member from Ward No.5 Village Khopati of
Gotabari Khopatia Gaon Panchayat under Fekamari Anchalik
Panchayat and to hold re-election for the post of the Member of
Ward No.5 Village Khopati of Gotabari Khopatia Gaon Panchayat.
14. The record reveals that this Court vide the order dated
Page No.# 24/68
31.10.2025 issued notice.
WP(C) No.6170/2025
15. The case of the Petitioner herein is that the Petitioner had
contested for a post of Ward Member from 10 No. Chalakura
Gaon Panchayat Constituency of Kalsabhanga Rowkhowa Gaon
Panchayat. The Respondent No.8 also contested in the said
election and the Respondent No.8 was declared elected as Ward
Member. The Petitioner secured the second highest number of
votes. It is the allegation of the Petitioner that the Respondent
No.8 was disqualified to remain as Ward Member in view of her
having more than two children beyond 19.03.2018.
16. The records further show that the Respondent No.2 by an
order dated 19.07.2025 had removed the Respondent No.8 as
Ward Member. However, the order dated 19.07.2025 was put to
challenge by the Respondent No.8 before this Court in WP(C)
No.4492/2025 and this Court vide a judgment and order dated
08.08.2025 set aside the order dated 19.07.2025 passed by the
Respondent No.2 with a further direction to the Respondent No.2
to proceed afresh based on the complaint lodged by the
Petitioner by providing a copy of the complaint lodged and the
enquiry report, if any, to the Respondent No.8 and further by
providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the Respondent
Page No.# 25/68
No.8.
17. The grievance of the Petitioner is that pursuant to such
directions, the District Commissioner, Goalpara had not taken up
the hearing, and as such, the Petitioner approached this Court
seeking a direction upon the District Commissioner, Goalpara to
hold a hearing on the matter and remove the Respondent No.8
from the post of the Member of 12 No. Kasalbhanga Rowkhana
Gaon Panchayat. Further to that, the Petitioner also sought for a
direction upon the District Commissioner, Goalpara to declare the
Petitioner as the winning candidate for the post of the Member
of 12 No. Kalsabhanga Rowkhowa Gaon Panchayat from 10 No.
Chalakura Gaon Panchayat Constituency. It is of relevance to
observe that though the learned Coordinate Bench in the
judgment and order dated 08.08.2025 in WP(C) No.4492/2025
directed the District Commissioner to decide by following the
principles of natural justice, but the learned Coordinate Bench
did not go into the question as to whether the District
Commissioner had the jurisdiction to disqualify in respect to an
existing disqualification at the time of filing the nomination paper.
18. The record reveals that this Court had issued notice vide an
order dated 01.11.2025.
Page No.# 26/68
WP(C) No.7257/2025
19. The Petitioner herein is a resident of Ward No.7 of 26 No.
Sukchar Gaon Panchayat under 21No. Mankachar LAC. The wife
of the petitioner, i.e. one Smti. Kashmira Begum had contested
the recent Panchayat Election from Ward No.7 of 26 No. Sukchar
Gaon Panchayat, but lost the election.
20. The Respondent No.7 also contested for the post of
Member of Ward No.7 of 26 No. Sukchar Gaon Panchayat and
was declared elected. It is the case of the Petitioner that the
Respondent No.7 had married one Abdus Samad when she was a
minor thus violating the provisions of the Prohibition of Child
Marriage Act, 2006.
21. It is relevant at this stage to observe that the Petitioner
claims that he knew that the Respondent No.7 had solemnized
her marriage when she was a minor, but neither he nor his wife
who was contesting the elections raised the issue during the
scrutiny of the nomination nor filed an election petition. Rather,
the Petitioner submitted a written petition to the Respondent
No.2 on 21.08.2025 informing the latter with regard to the
disqualification of the Respondent No.7 in terms with Section
111(2)(f) of the Act of 1994 read with Rule 62(4)(b) of the Rules
of 1995. As no action was taken by the Respondent No.2, the
Page No.# 27/68
Petitioner again on 29.10.2025 submitted another representation
requesting the Respondent No. 2 to dispose of his earlier
representation and initiate disqualification proceedings against
the Respondent No.7. However, as the representations failed to
evoke any action on the part of the Respondent No.2, the
Petitioner had preferred the writ petition. The reason why the
Petitioner had approached this Court for filing the writ petition is
specifically mentioned at paragraph No.7 of the said writ petition.
22. The reliefs sought by the Petitioner in the instant
proceedings is also relevant to be taken note of. The writ
Petitioner sought for a direction upon the Respondent No.2 to
forthwith initiate disqualification proceedings against the
Respondent No.7 for violation of the mandatory provisions
contained in Section 111(2)(f) of the Act of 1994 read with Rule
62(4)(b) of the Rules of 1995 and further to disqualify the
Respondent No.7 from remaining as a member of 26 No. Sukchar
Gaon Panchayat. The Petitioner has also sought for a writ in the
nature of quo warranto thereby declaring the Respondent No.7 is
not entitled to hold the post of President of 26No. Sukchar Gaon
Panchayat. The writ of quo warranto sought for is relevant which
this Court shall deal with it at a later stage.
23. Upon the writ petition being filed, this Court vide an order
dated 16.12.2025 issued notice.
Page No.# 28/68
24. The record reveals that an affidavit-in-opposition was filed
by the Respondent No.7 denying to the various allegations made
by the Petitioner as regards her date of birth as well as the date
of her marriage. It is also mentioned in the said affidavit-in-
opposition that the Respondent No.7 married to one Md. Abdus
Samad on 24.06.2017 and their marriage was registered under
the Special Marriage Act subsequently on 8.09.2025. The
Certificate of Marriage which was issued by the Office of the
Marriage Officer was enclosed as Annexure R-7(2) wherein it was
mentioned that the marriage was registered on 08.09.2025
having effect from 24.06.2017. It is also mentioned in the said
Affidavit that the first child of the Respondent No.7 was born on
24.04.2018 and the second child was born on 16.12.2020. In
addition to that, the Respondent No.7 had also filed an additional
affidavit on 16.02.2026. The Petitioner has also filed a
consolidated affidavit-in-reply to the affidavit-in-opposition as
well as the additional affidavit filed by the Respondent No.7.
WP(C) No.4526/2025.
25. The Petitioner herein is a voter of Ward No.8 (Hulashnagar
Ward) under Patiala Gaon Panchayat of 5, Dullavcherra Anchalik
Panchayat. The Respondent No.6 contested in the election to the
post of Ward Member. The Respondent No.6 was declared as the
returned candidate on 11.05.2025 to the post of Ward No.8
Page No.# 29/68
(Hulashnagar Ward) under Patiala Gaon Panchayat. It is alleged
that the Respondent No. 6 had submitted a false affidavit stating
her date of birth to be 15.03.2004 whereas her actual date of
birth was 15.03.2006. It was further mentioned that the
Respondent No.6 was only 19 years 17 days as on 02.04.2025,
i.e. the date of filing of the nomination paper and the minimum
age for contesting election to the post of Ward Member is 21
years. It was also alleged that the Respondent No.6 was a minor
on the date of solemnization of her marriage on 21.08.2022. A
complaint was submitted on 30.06.2025 to the District
Commissioner. However, as the complaint did not evoke any
response, the present writ petition was filed.
26. The record reveals that this Court vide an order dated
11.08.2025 issued notice.
WP(C) No.6200/2025.
27. The Petitioner herein is a voter of Ward No. 6 of 70, Gandhai
Brahman Sashan Gaon Panchayat in the district of Sribhumi and
participated in the election to the post of Member of the said
Ward. The Respondent No.7 also contested the election for
Member of Ward No. 4 of 70, Gandhai Brahman Sashan Gaon
Panchayat in the district of Sribhumi. The Respondent No.7 was
declared elected as Member of Ward No. 7 of 70, Gandhai
Page No.# 30/68
Brahman Sashan Gaon Panchayat.
28. It is the case of the Petitioner that the Respondent No.7 had
submitted her certificate of Pravesika Examination, 2010 issued
by the Secretary of Assam Sanskrit Board on 15.11.2011 at the
time of the election before the Returning Officer. It is alleged that
the Petitioner was confident that the Respondent No.7 had not
passed any kind of examinations. Additionally, it is alleged that
upon information received under the Right to Information Act,
2005, the Petitioner could come to learn that the certificate so
issued in favour of the Respondent No.7 was a forged document.
The Petitioner thereupon submitted representations on
09.07.2025 and 11.07.2025 before the Block Development
Officer, Malegarh Development Block and District Commissioner,
Sribhumi praying to take action against the Respondent No.7. As
no action was taken, the Petitioner filed the writ petition for
quashing the candidature of the membership of the Respondent
No.7 of Ward No. 4 of 70, Gandhai Brahman Sashan Gaon
Panchayat and further seeking a Writ of Mandamus directing the
District Commissioner to consider and dispose of the
representations dated 09.07.2025 and 11.07.2025.
29. At this stage, it is very pertinent to take note of that this
Court vide an order dated 03.12.2025 directed the Standing
Counsel of the Education Department to obtain instructions from
Page No.# 31/68
the Assam Sanskrit Board regarding genuineness or otherwise of
the pass certificate of Pravesika Examination, 2010 as regards
the result of the Respondent No.7. On 27.02.2026, Mr. T.
Thakuria, the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of
the Department of School Education placed before this Court an
instruction dated 12.02.2026 stating that the certificate of the
Respondent No.7 was a genuine certificate. The said instruction
has been kept on record and marked with the letter ‘X’. The
certificate which was confirmed by the Department of School
Education is Annexure-3 to the writ petition.
WP(C) No.282/2026
30. The Petitioners herein are elected Members of the Gram
Panchayat Election, 2025 from Group Nos.01, 05, 07 & 10 of
Dholai Molai Gaon Panchayat in the district of Hailakandi,
Sribhumi. The Respondent No.6 was elected as the Member from
Group 03 and the Respondent No.7 was elected from Group 02
of the Dholai Molai Gaon Panchayat. It is the allegation of the
Petitioners that both the Respondent Nos.6 & 7 have submitted
fake educational qualification certificates and have also violated
the provisions of the Prevention of Child Marriage Act, 2006. It is
relevant to take note of that the grievance of the Petitioners in
the writ petition against the Respondent Nos.6 & 7 as regards
their election as Members of Group 03 and Group 02 of Dholai
Page No.# 32/68
Molai Gaon Panchayat respectively is primarily on the ground
that the Respondent Nos.8 & 9 were elected as the President
and Vice President of Dholai Molai Gaon Panchayat under Lala
Development Block on the basis of the votes secured from the
Respondent Nos.6 & 7. Be that as it may, a representation was
submitted on 03.07.2025 before the District Commissioner.
However, the said representation was not taken into
consideration. The Petitioner thereupon submitted another
representation on 26.11.2025 before the District Commissioner
seeking disqualification of the candidatures of the Respondent
Nos.6 and 7 as well as the consequential selection of the
President and Vice President owing to participation of illegally
elected members on account of their violation of the eligibility
conditions prescribed for candidates in the Assam Panchayat
Election, 2025 as per the Act of 1994 and the Rules of 1995. The
said representations have not been considered, and it is under
such circumstances, the present writ petition was filed for setting
aside and quashing the improper acceptance of defective
nominations and consequential election of the Respondent No.6
& 7 as Members of Dholai Molai Gaon Panchayat. The Petitioners
have also sought for quashing of the impugned Minutes of the
First meeting dated 04.07.2025 of the Dholai Molai Gaon
Panchayat whereby the election of the Respondent Nos.6 & 7
Page No.# 33/68
were accepted and they were administered oath. The Petitioners
have also challenged the selection of the Respondent Nos.8 & 9
as President and Vice President of Dholai Molai Gaon Panchayat
in the selection process owing to participation of the Respondent
Nos.6 & 7 whose candidatures were liable to be disqualified
under Rule 62 of the Rules of 1995.
31. This Court vide an order dated 21.01.2026 issued notice.
32. The above batch of writ petitions which are referred to as the
first set of writ petitions would show that the petitioners have
been filed by the writ petitions challenging the election of the
returned candidates on account of pre-existing disqualifications
at the time of submission of the nomination papers during the
Panchayat Election, 2025. The grievance of the petitioners in
these writ petitions was the inaction on the part of the District
Commissioner to act upon their representations filed and initiate
disqualification proceedings against the returned candidates.
33. This Court now finds it relevant to take note of the two other
writ petitions which are hereinafter referred to as the second set
of writ petitions. In these writ petitions, the challenge made is to
the orders of the District Commissioners who in exercise of the
powers under Rule 62 of the Rules of 1995 disqualified the writ
petitioners in both the writ petitions. The facts are detailed
Page No.# 34/68
herein under.
WP(C) No.5773/2025
34. The Petitioner herein is aggrieved by the order dated
09.07.2025 passed by the District Commissioner, Morigaon
whereby the Petitioner was disqualified and removed from the
post of Ward Member of Ward No.7 under Doloigaon Gaon
Panchayat in the district of Morigaon.
35. It is the case of the Petitioner herein that pursuant to a notice
of election published on 03.04.2025, the Petitioner participated in
the election to the post of Ward Member of Ward No.7 under
Doloigaon Gaon Panchayat by submitting her nomination. Along
with the petitioner, the other candidates who submitted
nominations, their nominations were scrutinized and the names
of the valid contesting candidates were published on 17.04.2025.
In respect to Ward No.7 under Doloigaon Gaon Panchayat, there
were four numbers of candidates including the petitioner. The
polling was held on 07.05.2025 and counting took place on
11.05.2025. After the counting was over, the Petitioner was
declared as the returned candidate having secured 321 votes in
comparison to the second candidate who secured 295 votes, the
third candidate who secured 155 votes and the fourth candidate
who secured 98 votes. The Petitioner thereupon was issued the
Page No.# 35/68
return of election as per Rule 44(7) of the Rules of 1995.
36. The Respondent No.4 in the instant proceedings, i.e. the Co-
District Commissioner, Laharighat Co-District, issued a notice
dated 05.07.2025 thereby directing the Petitioner to appear in
person for enquiry on 08.07.2025 at the Office of the Co-District
Commissioner, Laharighat along with the Aadhar Card, Voter ID
including spouse/children. The petitioner, however, could not
appear on the date so directed in the notice dated 05.07.2025 as
the Petitioner was undergoing medical treatment at Aditya
Hospital from 07.05.2025 to 09.07.2025. The Petitioner through
her husband requested another date for appearance of the
petitioner.
37. On 10.07.2025, when the Petitioner went to the Office of
Doloigaon Gaon Panchayat to attend the meeting at 11:00 AM,
the Respondent No.5 entered the Office at around 11:30 AM, just
prior to the start of the formal meeting and handed over the
order dated 09.07.2025 to the Authorized Officer who in turn
handed over the same to the Petitioner and asked her to leave
the Office as she was no longer the Member of the Gaon
Panchayat. A perusal of the impugned order dated 09.07.2025
shows that the Petitioner herein was disqualified as per the
provisions of Section 111(2)(f) of the Act of 1994 read with Rule
62(4)(b) and (c) of the Rules of 1995 on the ground that from
Page No.# 36/68
the enquiry so conducted by one Sri Pramod Sarmah, ACS,
Assistant Commissioner, it was found that the Petitioner was 16
years 6 months 29 days when she entered into marriage with
Shoriful Islam elected Member of Ward No.5 of Doloigaon Gaon
Panchayat and she had not completed 18 years of age when she
married to Shoriful Islam and it is a matter of minor marriage.
Being aggrieved, the Petitioner has approached this Court by
filing the present writ petition.
38. This Court vide an order dated 25.09.2025 while issuing
notice, stayed the impugned order dated 09.07.2025. The interim
order was subsequently extended vide an order dated
29.10.2025. An application being I.A.(C) No.3931/2025 was filed
in the instant proceedings by one Gulzar Hussain, who is the
Respondent No.8 for vacation of the interim order dated
25.09.2025 on the ground that the writ petition not only lacks
merit but also based upon suppression of material facts.
WP(C) No.5815/2025
39. The Petitioner herein is aggrieved by the order dated
09.07.2025 passed by the District Commissioner, Morigaon
whereby the Petitioner was disqualified and removed from the
post of Ward Member of Ward No.5 under 49 No. Doloigaon
Gaon Panchayat in the district of Morigaon.
Page No.# 37/68
40. It is the case of the Petitioner herein that pursuant to a notice
of election published on 03.04.2025, the Petitioner participated in
the election to the post of Ward Member of Ward No.5 under 49
No.Doloigaon Gaon Panchayat by submitting her nomination.
Along with the petitioner, the other candidates who submitted
nominations, their nominations were scrutinized and the names
of the valid contesting candidates were published on 17.04.2025.
In respect to Ward No.5 under Doloigaon Gaon Panchayat, there
were 3 candidates including the petitioner. The polling was held
on 07.05.2025 and counting took place on 11.05.2025. After the
counting was over, the Petitioner was declared as the returned
candidate having secured 365 votes in comparison to the second
candidate who secured 307 votes and the third candidate who
secured 188 votes. The Petitioner thereupon was issued the
return of election as per Rule 44(7) of the Rules of 1995.
41. The Respondent No.4 in the instant proceedings, i.e. the Co-
District Commissioner, Laharighat Co-District, issued a notice
dated 05.07.2025 thereby directing the Petitioner to appear in
person for enquiry on 08.07.2025 at the Office of the Co-District
Commissioner, Laharighat along with the Aadhar Card, Voter ID
including spouse/children. The petitioner, however, could not
appear on the said date so directed in the notice dated
05.07.2025 as the Petitioner was undergoing medical treatment
Page No.# 38/68
at Nidan Hospital, Nagaon from 07.07.2025 to 09.07.2025.
This aspect was brought to the attention of the Respondent No.4
by the advocate of the Petitioner.
42. On 10.07.2025, when the Petitioner went to the Office of
Doloigaon Gaon Panchayat to attend the meeting at 11:00 AM,
the Respondent No.5 entered the Office at around 11:30 AM, just
prior to the start of the formal meeting and handed over the
order dated 09.07.2025 to the Authorized Officer who in turn
handed over the same to the Petitioner and asked her to leave
the Office as she was no longer the Member of the Gaon
Panchayat. A perusal of the impugned order dated 09.07.2025
shows that the Petitioner herein was disqualified as per the
provisions of Section 111(2)(f) of the Act of 1994 read with Rule
62(4)(b) and (c) of the Rules of 1995 on the ground that one
Jaheda Begum entered into a marriage with the Petitioner on
30.06.2012 when she was not eighteen years of marriage. Being
aggrieved, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the
present writ petition.
43. This Court vide an order dated 26.09.2025 while issuing
notice, stayed the impugned order dated 09.07.2025. The interim
order was subsequently extended vide an order dated
29.10.2025 and an application being I.A.(C) No.4055/2025 was
filed in the instant proceedings by one Gulzar Hussain, who is the
Page No.# 39/68
Respondent No.8 for vacation of the interim order dated
26.09.2025 on the ground that the writ petition not only lacks
merit but also suppresses various material facts.
44. The facts in the above two writ petitions being WP(C)
No.5773/2025 and WP(C) No.5815/2025 would show that not
only the impugned orders dated 09.07.2025 violates the mandate
of the principles of natural justice as no opportunity of hearing
was granted to the Petitioners in both the writ petitions, but also
the impugned orders are passed by the District Commissioner,
Morigaon, i.e. the Respondent No.2 in respect to an alleged
disqualification which existed at the time of submission of the
nomination papers by the Petitioners.
45. In the backdrop of the above, let this Court now take note of
the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Aysha Khatun
(supra). In the case of Aysha Khatun (supra), the Petitioner
therein was disqualified under Section 111(2)(f) of the Act of
1994 read with Rule 62(4)(b) and (c) of the Rules of 1995 vide
an order dated 09.12.2025 passed by the District Commissioner,
Goalpara.
46. This Court while deciding the said dispute, formulated three
Points for Determination which included as to whether the
District Commissioner had the authority and jurisdiction to pass
Page No.# 40/68
the order dated 09.12.2025 thereby disqualifying the petitioners
in the said writ petition. This Court has duly taken note of the
provisions of Chapter IX of the Constitution and more particularly
to Article 243F of the Constitution and Section 111 of the Act of
1994. This Court further took note of Rule 62 of the Rules of
1995 and analyzed the provisions therein. Upon analyzing the
provisions of Article 243F of the Constitution read with Section
111(1)(h) of the Act of 1994 and Rule 62 of the Rules of 1995,
this Court categorically observed that the District Commissioner
cannot assume jurisdiction on his own. There is a requirement of
a reference to be made in the manner prescribed in Rule 62 of
the Rules of 1995. Paragraph Nos.51 and 52 of the said
judgment, being relevant, is reproduced herein under:-
“51. From a perusal of the above-quoted Rule, it shows that subject to
the provisions of the Act of 1994, at the time of filing nominations,
the candidates are required to furnish affidavit regarding their age
at the time of their marriage, failing which, the concerned
candidates shall be disqualified. The said Sub-Rule 62(4)(a) of the
Rules of 1995 makes it clear that at the time of filing nominations,
the candidates are required to furnish affidavit regarding their age
at the time of marriage and non-furnishing of such affidavit would
lead to disqualification. The said Sub-Rule, however, does not say
anything about the disclosure the age of the candidate’s spouse.
Clause (b) of Rule 62(4) of the Rules of 1995 is in reference to
Page No.# 41/68Article 243-F(2) of the Constitution and Section 111(1)(h) of the Act
of 1994 inasmuch as the Authority to remove the President,
VicePresident, or Member of the Zilla Parishad, Anchalik Panchayat,
or Gaon Panchayat is conferred upon the State Government or the
concerned District Authority. Rule 62(4)(c) of the Rules of 1995 is
also in reference to Section 111(1)(h) of the Act of 1994 thereby
prescribing the manner in which the Reference would be made to
the Authority who would decide the question of disqualification. A
perusal of the said Sub-Rule reveals that the Gaon Panchayat
Secretary, on receipt of information of such underage or minor
marriage, in respect of the President, Vice-President, or Member of
the Gaon Panchayat shall inform the matter to the concerned Block
Development Officer, who in turn shall inform the concerned District
Commissioner through the Chief Executive Officer of the Zilla
Parishad. The prescription contained in Rule 62(4)(c) of the Rules of
1995 does not prescribe that the District Commissioner on its own
can exercise the jurisdiction of the Authority. Rather it stipulates that
upon the reference made in the manner stipulated in Rule 62(4)(c)
of the Rules of 1995, the District Commissioner can exercise the
jurisdiction.
52. A reading of Rule 62(1) (f), (g) & (h), Rule 62(3) (c), (d) & (e) as
well as 62(4)(c), (d), and (e) of the Rules of 1995 stipulates the
manner in which the question of disqualification of a member of a
Panchayat body can be referred for decision to the Authority. In
other words, the Parliament, the State Legislature as well as the
State Government were of the view that the disqualification
Page No.# 42/68proceedings have to be referred to the Authority for decision, and
not that the Authority competent to decide could assume such
jurisdiction on its own. The question therefore arises as to whether
the Respondent No. 4 could have at all initiated an enquiry and
passed the impugned order without a Reference made in terms with
Rule 62(4)(c) of the Rules of 1995. The answer has to be in the
negative for the simple reason that when the prescription mentions
a particular mode, the same ought to be followed.”
47. Apart from deciding the question that the District
Commissioner cannot assume jurisdiction without a reference
being made, this Court in the case of Aysha Khatun (supra) also
went into the question whether the District Commissioner had
the competence and jurisdiction to pass an impugned order of
disqualification in a case where the disqualification was existed at
the time of submission of the nomination papers, or in other
words, as to whether an improper acceptance of a nomination
paper can be a question which can be decided by the District
Commissioner subsequent to the election under Section 111 of
the Act of 1994. This Court in the case of Aysha Khatun (supra)
referred to various judgments of the Supreme Court including the
judgment rendered in the case of Consumer Education and
Research Society vs. Union of India and Others , reported in (2009) 9
SCC 648. Paragraph Nos.53 to 76 of the judgment in the case of
Aysha Khatun (supra) being relevant are reproduced herein
Page No.# 43/68
under:-
“53. Be that as it may, the question still looms as to whether the
District Commissioner had the competence and jurisdiction to pass
the impugned order de hors the fact that the District Commissioner
could not have assumed jurisdiction without a reference being
made.
54. For deciding the said question, it is necessary to take into
consideration some of the provisions of the Constitution of India, Act
of 1994, Act of 1951, Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 and the Rules
of 1995. Before proceedings on the said analysis, this Court finds it
relevant to quote Rule 45Z of the Rules of 1995.
“45Z. Applicability of Central Rules, statutory orders, etc:- (1)
Without prejudice to the foregoing provisions, wherever no
specific provisions with respect to the use of electronic voting
machines at elections is made, the corresponding provisions
related to voting in these rules shall mutatis mutandis apply in
such cases.
(2) Without prejudice to the foregoing provisions, wherever no
specific provisions are made in these rules, the provisions of
the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961 and the Representation
of People Act, 1951 (Act No. 43 of 1951) shall apply from time
to time and the instructions, statutory orders and clarifications
issued by the Election Commission of India shall mutatis
mutandis apply for the cases under these rules.”
In the backdrop of the above, let this Court analyze the provisions of
Page No.# 44/68
the Constitution, the Act of 1994, Act of 1995, Conduct of Election
Rules, 1961 as well as the Rules of 1995.
55. Section 114 of the Act of 1994 stipulates that the
superintendence, direction and control of the preparation of the
Electoral roll for and the conduct of all elections to the Panchayat
shall be vested in a State Election Commission consisting of a State
Election Commissioner to be appointed by the Governor. Sub-Section
(4) of Section 114 of the Act of 1994 stipulates that the various
officers, i.e the Returning Officers, Assistant Returning Officers,
Presiding Officers, Polling Officers, and any other officer appointed
under the Act of 1994 and any Police Officers designated for the
time being by the State Government for the conduct of the
Panchayat Election shall be deemed to be on deputation to the State
Election Commission for the period commencing on and from the
date of the Notification calling for the Panchayat Election and ending
with the date of declaration of the results of the election and such
officers shall, during this period be subject to the control,
superintendence, and discipline of the State Election Commission.
Sub-Section 5 of Section 114 of the Act of 1994 stipulates that
subject to the provisions of the Constitution of India, the State
Legislature may by law, make provision with respect to all matters
relating to, or in connection with the Election to the Panchayats.
At this stage, it is apposite to observe that Section 114 of the Act
of 1994 has its roots embedded in Article 243-K of the Constitution.
Clause (4) of Article 243-K of the Constitution empowers the State
Legislature to make provisions with respect to all matters relating to
Page No.# 45/68
or are in connection with, elections to the Panchayats.
It is under such circumstances, various provisions have been
made in the Act of 1994 which relates to or in connection with
elections to Panchayat.
56. Chapter-XI of the Act of 1994 is with the heading “Miscellaneous”.
Section 127 of the Act of 1994 stipulates that the Government shall
constitute such Panchayat Election Tribunals as may be necessary,
on the recommendation of the High Court to dispose of all direct
election petitions challenging election under the Act of 1994. Section
127A to Section 127P of the Act of 1994 relates to various offences
and penalties. Section 127Q confers jurisdiction upon the competent
Court to try any offence under the Act of 1994. Section 127R of the
Act of 1994 stipulates that such offences under the Act of 1994 may
be tried summarily in the manner provided for summary trial under
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
57. Section 129 of the Act of 1994 is of relevance and as such, the
same is reproduced herein under:
“129. Bar to interference by Courts in electoral matters:-
Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act-
(a) the validity of any law relating to the delimination of
constituencies on the allotment of seats to such
constituencies, made under Article 243 of the Constitution of
India shall not be called in question in any Court;
(b) no election to any Panchayat shall be called in question
except by an election petition presented within sixty days from
Page No.# 46/68the date of declaration of election results to the Tribunal
constituted under Section 127.”
58. For the purpose of the present dispute, this Court is not
concerned with Section 129(a) of the Act of 1994. Clause (b) of
Section 129 of the Act of 1994 specifically mandates that no election
to any Panchayat shall be called in question except by way of an
election petition presented within 60 (sixty) days from the date of
declaration of the election results to the Tribunal constituted under
Section 127 of the Act of 1994. In other words, an election to any
Panchayat can be called in question only by way of an election
petition, that too, presented within 60 (sixty) days from the date of
declaration of the results to the Election Tribunal. It is also very
pertinent to take note of the fact that Section 129 of the Act of 1994
provides opportunities to the person aggrieved to challenge the
election result, but in doing so, an election petition has to be
presented within 60 (sixty) days before the Tribunal.
59. The edifice of Section 129 of the Act of 1994 is in Article 243-O of
the Constitution of India which bars interference by Courts in
electoral matters. The said Article, being relevant, is reproduced
herein under:
“243O. Bar to interference by courts in electoral matters .–
Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution,–
(a) the validity of any law relating to the delimitation of
constituencies or the allotment of seats to such constituencies,
made or purporting to be made under article 243K, shall not
Page No.# 47/68be called in question in any court; (b) no election to any
Panchayat shall be called in question except by an election
petition presented to such authority and in such manner as is
provided for by or under any law made by the Legislature of a
State.”
60. Article 243-O of the Constitution of India as a whole starts with a
non-obstinate Clause i.e. “Notwithstanding anything in this
Constitution”, and in terms with Clause (b) of Article 243-O no
election to any Panchayat shall be called in question except by an
election petition presented to such Authority and in such manner as
is provided for by or under any law made by the Legislature of the
State. The law made by the Legislature of the State in the instant
case would be the Act of 1994. At this stage, it is also apposite to
observe that Section 141 of the Act of 1994 empowers the State
Government to make Rules. It is in exercise of the powers under
SubSection(1) of Section 141 of the Act of 1994, that the Rules of
1995 were made. The Rules of 1995 deal inter alia with delimitation
of the Panchayat constituencies as well as elections to the
Panchayats including elections to the President, Vice President at
any of the levels of the Panchayats.
61. Rule 45Z of the Rules of 1995 has been already quoted herein
above. By the said Rule, the provisions of the Act of 1951, the
Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, the instructions, statutory orders
and clarifications issued by the Election Commission of India are
adopted where there is no specific provision provided in the Rules.
62. This Court, at this stage would take note of Article 329(b) of the
Page No.# 48/68
Constitution of India, which is also pari materia to Article 243-O of
the Constitution of India and to some extent to the provisions of
Section 129 of the Act of 1994. The observations of the Supreme
Court in the case of N.P. Ponnuswami Vs. Returning Officer,
Namakkal Constituency & Others reported in (1952) 1 SCC 94 wherein
the Bench comprising of 6 (six) Hon’ble Judges of the Supreme
Court deliberated upon as regards the scope of Article 329(b) of the
Constitution of India is of relevance.
63. His Lordship Justice Fazl Ali, J., (as His Lordship then was)
authoring the judgment observed that even the invocation of the
extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, in respect to a challenge to an election, would
be contrary to the Scheme of Part XV of the Constitution of India
and the Act of 1951. His Lordship opined that Article 329(b) of the
Constitution of India was apparently enacted to prescribe the
manner in which and the stage at which, the grounds which may be
raised under law to call an election in question could be urged. It
was observed that by necessary implication from the language of
Article 329(b) of the Constitution of India read with the grounds
mentioned in the Act of 1951, such grounds cannot be urged in any
other manner, at any other stage, or before any other Court. It was
further observed that if the grounds on which an election can be
called in question could be raised at an early stage and errors, if
any, are rectified, there would be no meaning in enacting a provision
like Article 329(b) of the Constitution of India and in setting up a
Special Tribunal. Any other meaning ascribed to the words used in
Page No.# 49/68
Article 329(b) of the Constitution of India would lead to anomalies
which the Constitution could not have contemplated, one of them
being that conflicting views might be expressed by the High Court at
pre-polling stage and by the Election Tribunal, which is an
independent body, at the stage when the matter is brought before
it.
64. This Court also finds it pertinent to take note of the observations
of His Lordship V.R. Krishna Iyer, J., (as His Lordship then was), in
the judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the
case of Mohinder Singh Gill (supra), wherein His Lordship observed
that an election dispute is not like an ordinary lis between private
parties. The entire electorate is vicariously and not inertly, before
the Court. His Lordships observed that election disputes is a species
of cases which can be called as collective litigation, where judicial
activism assures justice to the constituency, safeguards the purity of
the system and decides the rights of the candidates.
65. In both the judgments i.e. in the cases of N.P. Ponnuswami
(supra) and in Mohinder Singh Gill (supra), the Supreme Court
categorically opined that the result of an election can be challenged
only by way of an election petition thereby presenting it to such
authority and in such manner as may be provided for by or under
any law made by the appropriate Legislature. Insofar as Article
329(b) of the Constitution of India is concerned, the appropriate
legislation so made is the Act of 1951.
66. It is the opinion of this Court that insofar as Article 243-O of the
Constitution of India is concerned, the same principles would apply.
Page No.# 50/68
In other words, election to a Panchayat can only be called in
question by way of an election petition and taking into account
Section 129 of the Act of 1994, such election can be called in
question by presenting an Election Petition to the Election Tribunal
constituted under Section 127 of the Act of 1994. The above opinion
of this Court finds support from the judgment of the Supreme Court
in the case of Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) Vs. State of Tamil
Nadu reported in (2020) 6 SCC 548 as well as State of Goa & Another
Vs. Fouziya Imtiaz Shaikh & Another reported in (2021) 8 SCC 401.
67. Now in the above backdrop, the question arises as to what
disputes come within the meaning of calling in question an election.
This aspect is important inasmuch as such dispute can only be
decided by the Election Tribunal and not by any other Court or
Authority. For understanding the said aspect, this Court finds it
relevant to note the interplay between Article 243-F of the
Constitution and Section 111 of the Act of 1994 with Article 243-O
of the Constitution, Section 129 of the Act of 1994, the Rules of
1995 and the Act of 1951.
68. In the previous segments of the instant judgment, this Court had
dealt with Article 243-F of the Constitution wherein it is stipulated
that a candidate would be disqualified for being chosen as, and for
being a member of the Panchayat if the candidate suffers
disqualification in terms with Article 191 of the Constitution as well
as Section 111 of the Act of 1994 wherein the disqualifications
mentioned may be solely,
(i) occurring at the time of election or,
Page No.# 51/68
(ii) at the time of the election or subsequent to the elections; or
(iii) subsequent to the elections.
69. Similarly, a reading of Article 191 of the Constitution would show
that the disqualifications mentioned in Sub-Clauses (a) to (d) of
Article 191(1) of the Constitution can be at the time of election i.e.
submission of the nomination paper or subsequent to the election. It
is also apposite to mention that Article 191(1)(e) of the Constitution
stipulates that a candidate may be disqualified by or under any law
made by the Parliament. In that respect, reference to Chapter III of
the Act of 1951 may be made which refers to various forms of
disqualifications which can occur at the time of election i.e.
submission of the nomination paper or subsequent to the elections.
70. At this stage, it is also apposite to take note of Rule 22 of the
Rules of 1995 which stipulates “Filing and Scrutiny of Nomination
Paper Form IIA and IIB”. A perusal of the said Rule and more
particularly Rule 22(1) of the Rules of 1995 stipulates that any
person whose name appears in the list of voters of any of the
constituencies of a Gaon Panchayat or Zilla Parishad as published
under Rule 11 of the Rules of 1995 and who is not disqualified
under Section 111 of the Act of 1994 may be nominated as a
candidate from the concerning Zilla Parishad or Gaon Panchayat
Constituency as the case may be.
The said Sub-Rule also stipulates that the nomination paper be
delivered either by the candidate or by his/her proposer to the
Officer authorized by the Deputy Commissioner or the Sub-Divisional
Page No.# 52/68
Officer as the case may be.
Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 22 of the Rules of 1995 is very relevant for
the purpose of the present analysis and as such the same is
reproduced herein under:
“(2) The Officer as may be authorised under sub-rule (1), shall
not be below the Gazetted rank and shall be appointed with
prior approval of the State Election Commission. Such Officer
shall-
(a) examine the nomination papers on the date, time and place
notified for the purpose under the Rule;
(b) give the candidate or his proposer reasonable opportunity to
examine the nomination paper and shall decide on the spot,
the objections, if there be any, by summary enquiry. He may
either on his own initiative or an objections raised, reject any
nomination on any of the following grounds-
(i) that the candidate is not qualified under the provisions of the
act;
(ii) that he is disqualified from being chosen to fill the office or
that he is disqualified since requisite amount of security
deposit has not been paid;
(iii) that there has been failure to comply with any of the
provisions of these Rules; and
(iv) that the signature or thumb-impression of the candidate or
the proposer is not genuine.
Page No.# 53/68
Provided that nothing in sub-clauses (iii) and (iv) above shall be
deemed to authorise the rejection of the nomination paper of any
candidate on the ground of irregularity in respect of a nomination
paper, if the candidate has been duly nominated by means of other
nomination paper in respect of which no irregularity has been
committed.”
71. A perusal of the above quoted Sub-Rule shows that the officer
as authorized under Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 22 of the Rules of 1995
shall examine the nomination paper. The Officer further also shall by
affording reasonable opportunity to the candidate or his/her
proposer decide the objections to the nomination paper and if
necessary by carrying out a summary enquiry. The Officer shall also
examine as to whether the candidate is qualified or the candidate is
disqualified from being chosen to fill the office. The officer is
authorized to reject the nomination if the candidate amongst others
is found to be disqualified. This Sub-Rule(2) of Rule 22 of the Rules
of 1995 is akin to Section 36 of the Act of 1951.
From the above, it would show that the Officer Authorized is
competent to either accept the nomination or reject the nomination
for varied reasons including on an examination as to whether the
candidate is disqualified or not. The bar contained in Article 243-O
of the Constitution which is similar to Article 329(b) of the
Constitution as well as Section 129 of the Act of 1994, do not permit
the candidate or any person aggrieved to assail the acceptance of
the nomination paper or rejection of the nomination paper unless
the elections are over. The said provide further mandate challenging
Page No.# 54/68
the said aspect by way of an election petition to be submitted
before the Election Tribunal within 60 (sixty) days from the date of
declaration of the result. At this stage, it is of importance to again
refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of N.P.
Ponnuswami (supra) wherein the 6 (six) Hon’ble Judges of the
Supreme Court per curiam held that the word “election” has been
used in Part-XV of the Constitution of India in a wide sense to
connote the entire procedure to be gone through to return a
candidate to Legislature. It was also observed that improper
rejection of the nomination paper is a part of the election process
and challenge to the same is only permissible by way of an election
petition and not by way of a writ petition. It is also important to
note that improper acceptance of a nomination of a return
candidate or improper rejection of a nomination are grounds
available under Section 100 of the Act of 1951 from declaring an
election void.
72. In the backdrop of the above observations of the Supreme
Court, it is relevant to note that the Act of 1994 as well as the Rules
of 1995 do not mention what are the grounds to be urged for
declaring an election void. However, in view of Rule 45Z of the Rules
of 1995, the Act of 1951 has been adopted to fill in those gaps
where specific provisions have not been made in the Rules of 1995.
Under such circumstances, Section 100 of the Act of 1951 would
apply as regards an election petition to be filed calling in question
an election and the grounds mentioned in Section 100 of the Act of
1951 can only be urged in an election petition for declaration of an
Page No.# 55/68
election to be void. In this regard special reference can be made to
Section 100(1) (d)(i) of the Act of 1951 which stipulates where the
results of an election insofar as it concerns the returned candidate
have been materially affected by improper acceptance of nomination
would be a ground for declaring an election void.
73. Now therefore the pivotal question is, if a candidate who
incurred a disqualification at the time of submitting the nomination
that is at the time of elections by virtue of Article 191 of the
Constitution of India or Chapter-III of the Act of 1951 or Section
111 of the Act of 1994 but the nomination paper was accepted by
the Officer Authorized to do so, can this aspect be looked into by
the Authority to whom a reference is made to decide the question of
disqualification?
74. The answer has to be in the negative inasmuch as a candidate
who had incurred disqualification at the time of the election i.e.
submission of the nomination paper, but the nomination paper was
accepted would be a case of an improper acceptance of a
nomination. This improper acceptance of the nomination being a
part of the election process, the same has to be challenged by way
of an election petition by presenting the same before the Election
Tribunal within the period of 60 (sixty) days from the date of
declaration of the results. Failure to challenge the improper
acceptance of a nomination by way of an election petition would
result in the returned candidate continuing to remain as a Member
of the Panchayat. This Court at this stage finds it relevant to again
refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of
Page No.# 56/68
Consumer Education and Research Society (supra) wherein
the Supreme Court at paragraph No. 50 makes the aforesaid
principles absolutely clear. Paragraph No. 50 of the said judgment is
reproduced herein below:
“50. Thus, it is clear that where a person was under a
disqualification at the time of his election, the provisions of
Articles 101(3)(a) and 103 will not apply. He/She will continue
as a Member unless the High Court in an election petition filed
on that ground, declares that on the date of election, he/she
was disqualified and consequently, declares his/her election to
be void. It follows, therefore, that if an elected candidate was
under a disqualification when he was elected, but no one
challenges his/her election, he/she would continue as a
Member irrespective of the fact that he/she was under a
disqualification when elected.”
75. In the instant case, even assuming that the Petitioner had
incurred disqualification on account of having married below the
legal age as provided under the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act,
2006, the said disqualification was not taken into account while
scrutinizing the nomination paper of the Petitioner by the Officer
Authorized and consequently, the Petitioner contested the election
and was elected as the Member of the concerned Gaon Panchayat.
Under such circumstances, the case against the Petitioner at best
would be a case of improper acceptance of her nomination paper.
The improper acceptance of the nomination is a ground for
declaring the election void and the same has to be challenged by
Page No.# 57/68
way of an election petition presented to the Election Tribunal within
60 (sixty) days from the date of the result of the elections. The
Authority under Article 243-F(2) of the Constitution of India as well
as Section 111(1)(h) of the Act of 1994 cannot usurp the jurisdiction
of the Election Tribunal to decide a question of disqualification which
the candidate incurred at the time of election i.e. at the time of
submission of the nomination paper. The jurisdiction of the Authority
under Article 243-F(2) of the Constitution as well as Section 111(1)
(h) of the Act of 1994 would be only in respect to disqualification
which occurred subsequent to the elections. 76. In the instant case,
the marriage of the Petitioner as per the Petitioner was 05.01.2015.
The Respondent No. 4 opined that the marriage of the Petitioner
must have been prior to 06.01.2013 as the Petitioner’s first child
was born on 06.01.2013. Even assuming that the said findings are
correct as observed by the Respondent No. 4, the Petitioner would
be deemed to have incurred disqualification on the date of the
elections but in spite of the same, the nomination of the Petitioner
was accepted by the Officer Authorized and the Petitioner was
permitted to contest the elections. The Petitioner contested the
elections and returned as elected. The improper acceptance of the
Petitioner’s nomination being a ground available to declare an
election void, the same could only have been challenged by filing an
election petition within 60 (sixty) days from the date of the
declaration of the result. The Respondent No. 4 had no authority or
jurisdiction to decide a disqualification which was there at the time
of election i.e. submission of the nomination paper and as such the
Page No.# 58/68
impugned order dated 09.12.2025 is without authority and
jurisdiction. The above answers the first point for determination.”
48. The following propositions may be culled out from the
observations made by this Court in the case of Aysha Khatun
(supra) read with the provisions of the Constitution, Act of 1994
and Rules of 1995.
(A) Article 243F of the Constitution stipulates when a candidate
would be disqualified for being chosen as and for being a
member of the Panchayat.
(B) Section 111 of Act of 1994 however uses the expressions
“elected or co-opted” and “and remain”. There appears to be a
reason for doing so in as much as Section 111 of the Act of 1994
not only speaks of being a Member of the Panchayat, but also to
be elected or co-opted and remain as President or Vice President
of Zilla Parishad, Anchalik Panchayat and Gaon Panchayat.
(C) The proposition so laid down in Aysha Khatun (supra) has to be
understood in the context of as election and to remain as
Member of the Panchayat that would be election and to remain
as Member of Zilla Parishad, Anchalik Panchayat and Gaon
Panchayat. This is so because to be chosen as a Member of the
Panchayat, the person has to be elected in an election conducted
by the State Election Commission constituted in terms with
Page No.# 59/68
Article 243K of the Constitution read with Section 114 of the Act
of 1994. The bar contained in Article 243-O of the Constitution
read with Section 129 of the Act of 1994 is only in respect to
elections conducted by the State Election Commission.
However, election to the posts of President and Vice
President of the Gaon Panchayat, Anchalik Panchayat as well Zilla
Parishad are outside the purview of the State Election
Commission or even the electoral process conducted by the State
Election Commission.
The posts of President and Vice President of the Gaon
Panchayat, Anchalik Panchayat as well as Zilla Parishad are held
under the control and supervision of the District Commissioner
or any officer delegated by the District Commissioner as would
be apparent from a perusal of Section 6, 37 and 70 of the Act of
1994 read with Rules 46, 48 and 50 of the Rules of 1995.
(D) In the case of Aysha Khatun (supra), this Court categorically
held that in respect of a disqualification which existed at the time
of submission of the nomination paper, the said would come
within the purview of improper acceptance of the nomination
paper. This Court further held that an improper acceptance of the
nomination paper whereby the election of the returned candidate
have been materially effected being a ground for declaration of
Page No.# 60/68
the election to be void, the improper acceptance of the
nomination paper, being a part of the election process, the same
has to be challenged by way of an election petition by presenting
the same before the Election Tribunal within the period of 60
days from the date of declaration of the results of the election.
This Court also held that the District Commissioner had no
jurisdiction and competence to decide the question of
disqualification for being a Member of Panchayat if such
disqualification existed at the time of submission of the
nomination.
49. In the backdrop of the above, let this Court take note of the
alleged disqualifications of the private respondents in the first set
of writ petitions, where the petitioners have alleged that the
concerned District Commissioners have not taken into
consideration their representations for which the writ petitions
have been filed. For the sake of convenience, the details are
given in the form of a table.
Writ Petition Allegations Whether the alleged
disqualification
existed at the time of
filing of nomination
The Respondent No. 7 who
WP(C) No.
was elected did not have the Yes
5886/25
educational qualification as
required under Section 111 (2)
Page No.# 61/68
(b) & (c) of the Act of 1994.
The Respondent No. 5 who
was elected violated the legal
age of marriage under the
WP(C)
Prohibition of Child Marriage Yes
No.7329/23
Act, 2006 and hence
disqualified under Section 111
(2) (f) of the Act of 1994.
The Respondent No. 6, who
was elected, did not have the
WP(C) No.
educational qualification as Yes
6138/2025
required under Section 111 (2)
(b) of the Act of 1994.
The Respondent No. 8 who
was elected violated Section
WP(C) No.
111 (2) (n) of the Act 1994 as Yes
6170/2025
she had more than two
children after 19/03/2018.
The Respondent No. 7 who
was elected violated Section
111 (2) (f) of the Act 1994 as
WP(C) No.
she married prior to attaining Yes
7257/2025
the legal age prescribed in the
Prohibition of Child Marriage
Act, 2006
The Respondent No. 6 who
WP(C) No. was elected was disqualified
Yes
4526/2025 under Section 111 (1) (j) and
111(2)(f) of the Act of 1994
The Respondent No. 7 who
was elected did not have the
WP(C) No.
educational qualification under Yes
6200/2025
Section 111(2)(b) of the Act of
1994
Page No.# 62/68
The Respondent No. 6 &7 who
were elected did not have the
WP(C) No.
educational qualification as Yes
282/2026
was required under Section
111(2)(b) of the Act of 1994
50. The above table therefore demonstrates that all the private
respondents in the first set of writ petitions were elected and the
allegations are that they were disqualified. These alleged
disqualifications even assuming for argument sake to be correct
then also the cases of the petitioners come within the ambit of
improper acceptance of the nomination paper which being a part
of the election process could only have been challenged by way
of election petition as per the mandate of Article 243-O of the
Constitution and Section 129 of the Act of 1994. It is also the
opinion of this Court that permitting the District Commissioner to
decide such disqualification would amount to the District
Commissioner being permitted to intermeddle with the election
process and usurp upon the jurisdiction of the Election Tribunals
upon whom the jurisdiction is conferred not only by the Act of
1994 but also the Constitution of India.
Under such circumstances, the first set of writ petitions are
completely misconceived.
Page No.# 63/68
51. Let this Court now take into consideration the second set of
writ petitions which relate to orders passed by the District
Commissioner whereby the petitioners in both the writ petitions
were disqualified. These two writ petitions are squarely covered
by the judgment of this Court in Aysha Khatun (supra) as the writ
petitioners in the two writ petitions were disqualified by the
impugned orders both dated 09.07.2025 on the ground of
violation of Section 111(2)(f) of the Act of 1994. As the alleged
disqualifications were existing at the time of filing of the
nomination papers by both the Petitioners, the District
Commissioner had therefore no jurisdiction to decide the
disqualification of the Petitioners in both the writ petitions to be
Members of the Panchayat.
Under such circumstances, the second set of writ petitions
are required to be allowed by setting aside the impugned orders
dated 09.07.2025.
52. Before concluding, this Court finds it relevant to take note of
another aspect which in the previous segments of the present
judgment have been deferred to be taken at a later stage of the
present judgment. The said aspect pertains to WP(C)
No.7257/2025 whereby the Petitioner apart from questioning the
inaction on the part of the District Commissioner to disqualify the
private Respondent on the ground of violation of Section 111 (2)
Page No.# 64/68
(f) of the Act of 1994 have also sought for a writ of quo warranto
for setting aside the appointment of the private Respondent as
President of 26 No. Sukchar Gaon Panchayat.
53. Before dealing with the aforesaid aspect, this Court finds it
relevant to take note of the technical nature of the writ of quo
warranto as held by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court
in the case of University of Mysore vs. C.D. Govinda Rao and Anr. ,
reported in 1963 SCC OnLine SC 15. Paragraph No.6 of the said
judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:
“6. The judgment of the High Court does not indicate that the
attention of the High Court was drawn to the technical nature of the
writ of quo warranto which was claimed by the Respondent in the
present proceedings, and the conditions which had to be satisfied
before a writ could issue in such proceedings.
As Halsbury has observed:
“An information in the nature of a quo warranto took the place
of the obsolete writ of quo warranto which lay against a
person who claimed or usurped an office, franchise, or liberty,
to enquire by what authority he supported his claim, in order
that the right to the office or franchise might be determined.”
Broadly stated, the quo warranto proceeding affords a judicial
enquiry in which any person holding an independent substantive
public office, or franchise, or liberty, is called upon to show by what
right he holds the said office, franchise or liberty; if the inquiry leads
Page No.# 65/68
to the finding that the holder of the office has no valid title to it, the
issue of the writ of quo warranto ousts him from that office. In other
words, the procedure of quo warranto confers jurisdiction and
authority on the judiciary to control executive action in the matter of
making appointments to public offices against the relevant statutory
provisions; it also protects a citizen from being deprived of public
office to which he may have a right. It would thus be seen that if
these proceedings are adopted subject to the conditions recognised
in that behalf, they tend to protect the public from usurpers of
public office; in some cases, persons, not entitled to public office
may be allowed to occupy them and to continue to hold them as a
result of the connivance of the executive with its active help, and in
such cases, if the jurisdiction of the courts to issue writ of quo
warranto is properly invoked, the usurper can be ousted and the
person entitled to the post allowed to occupy it. It is thus clear that
before a citizen can claim a writ of quo warranto, he must satisfy
the court, inter alia, that the office in question is a public office and
is held by usurper without legal authority, and that necessarily leads
to the enquiry as to whether the appointment of the said alleged
usurper has been made in accordance with law or not.”
54. From the above quoted paragraph, it would show that to be
entitled to a writ of quo warranto, the person seeking a writ of
quo warranto has to satisfy two things:
(A) The office in question is a public office and is held by an
usurper without legal authority; and
Page No.# 66/68(B) The public office is held by usurper without legal authority.
It is only upon satisfaction of the said twin conditions, an
enquiry can be made whether the appointment of the alleged
usurper has been made in accordance with law or not.
55. Now let this Court analyze as to whether the Petitioner
satisfies the twin conditions. In the instant case, the Petitioner
alleges that the Respondent No.7 was disqualified under Section
111 (2)(f) of the Act of 1994. The facts are seriously disputed by
the private Respondent by filing affidavit. These disputed
questions cannot be adjudicated by this Court in a proceedings
under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is the opinion of this
Court that as the allegation of the Petitioner that the Respondent
No. 7 is disqualified to be the President remains as a mere
allegation, there is therefore no satisfaction of the twin
conditions for issuance of a writ of quo warranto.
56. Apart from the above, it is also relevant to note that from
the allegations contained in the writ petition, it is the case of the
Petitioner, who was the husband of the losing candidate that the
Respondent No. 7 was disqualified to be a member of the Gaon
Panchayat in view of Section 111(2)(f) of the Act of 1994 and on
account of inaction on the part of the District Commissioner, the
writ petition was filed. This aspect as already held above, cannot
Page No.# 67/68
be decided by the District Commissioner as the alleged
disqualification existed at the time of filing the nomination and
would come within the ambit of an election dispute.
What the Petitioner in the instant proceedings is also trying
to do by seeking a writ of quo warranto against the private
respondent’s appointment as President is to indirectly question
the private respondent’s disqualification to be a Member of the
Panchayat which the Petitioner cannot raise now having not filed
an election petition as required under law. In other words, the
Petitioner by seeking a writ of quo warranto into the
appointment of the Respondent No. 7 as the President is trying
to do a thing indirectly which the Petitioner cannot do it directly.
The act on the part of the Petitioner reminds this Court of the
words of Lord Halsbury in the case of Madden vs Nelson and Fort
Sheppard Rly. Co., reported in 1899 AC 626 wherein he observed:
“You cannot do that indirectly which you are prohibited from
doing directly”
57. Accordingly, the present batch of writ petitions stands
disposed of with the following observations and directions:-
(i) The first set of writ petitions being WP(C) No.282/2026;
WP(C) No.4526/2025; WP(C) No.5686/2025; WP(C)
No.6138/2025; WP(C) No.6170/2025; WP(C)
Page No.# 68/68
No.6200/2025; WP(C) No.7257/2025 and WP(C)
No.7329/2025 are dismissed.
(ii) The impugned order dated 09.07.2025 assailed in WP(C)
No.5773/2025 as well as all consequential action(s) taken
on the basis of the impugned order dated 09.07.2025 are
set aside and quashed.
(iii) The impugned order dated 09.07.2025 assailed in WP(C)
No.5815/2025 as well as any consequential action(s) taken
on the basis of the impugned order dated 09.07.2025 are
set aside and quashed.
JUDGE
Pradip Kumar Kalita Digitally signed by Pradip Kumar Kalita
Date: 2026.03.30 18:41:27 +05’30’
Comparing Assistant