Gauhati High Court
Ibrahim Ali vs The State Of Assam And 5 Ors on 2 February, 2023
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010080352022
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/2860/2022
IBRAHIM ALI
S/O LATE KHORSED ALI, VILL-NICHUKA, P.O. AND P.S.-BARPETA ROAD,
DIST-BARPETA, ASSAM, PIN-781315
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS
REPRESENTED BY ELECTION COMMISSIONER, GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM,
HOUSEFED COMPLEX, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006
2:THE RETURNING OFFICER (PANCHAYAT ELECTION-2017-2018) BARPETA
CUM DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BARPETA DISTRICT
P.O.-BARPETA
DIST- BARPETA
ASSAM
PIN-781301
3:THE DISTRICT ELECTION OFFICER (PANCHAYAT ELECTION-2017-2018)
CUM ADDITIONAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BARPETA DISTRICT
P.O.-BARPETA
DIST- BARPETA
ASSAM
PIN-781301
4:THE ASSISTANT RETURNING OFFICER (PANCHAYAT ELECTION 2017-
2018) BARPETA
CUM CIRCLE OFFICER
BARNAGAR REVENUE CIRCLE
SORBHOG
P.O. AND P.S.-SORBHOG
Page No.# 2/5
DIST-BARPETA
ASSAM
PIN-781317
5:THE OFFICER IN-CHARGE
BARPETA SADAR POLICE STATION
BARPETA
P.O.-BARPETA
DIST-BARPETA
ASSAM
PIN-781301
6:ANOWAR MONDAL @ BABUL
S/O SHRI FAJOL HOQUE
VILL-SHAHAPUR
P.O. AND P.S.-SORBHOG
DIST-BARPETA
ASSAM
PIN-78131
BEFORE
Hon'ble MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI
JUDGMENT & ORDER
Advocate for the petitioner : Shri M. Ahmed, Advocate.
Advocates for respondents : Shri R. Dubey, Advocate,
Shri M. Barman, Advocate
Shri A. Goyal, Advocate.
Date of hearing : 02.02.2023
Date of judgment : 02.02.2023
Page No.# 3/5
1. A judgment and order dated 23.03.2022 passed by the learned President, District
Panchayat Election Tribunal, Barpeta in Election Petition No. 38/2019 is the subject
matter of challenge.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that nine persons including the petitioner had
contested for the post of President of the 46 No. Nichuka Gaon Panchayat under 9 No.
Chakchaka Anchalik Panchayat under the Meda Nichuka Zilla Parishad in the district of
Barpeta in the Panchayat Election of 2018 in which the respondent no. 6 was declared
the winner. However, the allegation of the petitioner is that there were certain forged
documents submitted by the respondent no. 6 permitting to his educational
qualification for which a police complaint was also lodged. It is the case of the
petitioner that in the investigation, materials were found and accordingly, Charge
Sheet submitted whereafter the aforesaid Election Petition was filed. It is the specific
case of the petitioner that though all the documents were submitted and proved in the
Tribunal including certified copies, the learned Tribunal had committed factual error in
terming certain documents to be photo copies instead of certified copies. There are
other anomalies also which have been pointed out by the petitioner.
3. I have heard Shri M. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also
heard Shri R. Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 1 to 4, Ms. M.
Barman, learned State Counsel appearing for the respondent no. 5 and Shri A. Goyal,
learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 6. The LCR which are called for have
also been perused.
4. Before going deep into the merits of the petition, on a careful perusal of the
records, it is found that there are factual errors while recording the submission as well
as on appreciation of the documents by the learned Tribunal. Accordingly, this Court is
of the opinion that instead of taking up the matter on merits, interest of justice would
be served if the matter is remitted back to the primary authority to reconsider the
Page No.# 4/5
matter by taking into account all the relevant documents in the manner as prescribed
by law.
5. With regard to the aspect of exercise of writ jurisdiction, a Constitution Bench
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nagendra Nath Bora Vs. Commr. of
Hills Division and Appeals, reported in 1958 SCR 1240 : AIR 1958 SC 398 has
laid down as follows:
"30. That leads us to a consideration of the nature of the error which can be said to
be an error apparent on the face of the record which would be one of the grounds to
attract the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution. ...
"The Court issuing a writ certiorari acts in exercise of a supervisory and not appellate
jurisdiction. One consequence of this is that the Court will not review findings of fact
reached by the inferior Court or Tribunal, even if they be erroneous."
"It may therefore be taken as settled that a writ of certiorari could be issued to
correct an error of law. But it is essential that it should be something more than a
mere error: it must be one which must be manifest on the face of the record."
6. It is a settled law that in exercise of powers of judicial review it is the decision
making process and not the decisions which is the subject matter of scrutiny. While
examining the decision making process, a Writ Court may look into the following
aspects:
i. Whether there is any jurisdictional error in passing of the order?
ii. Whether the relevant factors have been taken into consideration?
iii. Whether the decision is based on irrelevant and extraneous factors?
iv. Whether the decision is palpably erroneous?
Page No.# 5/5
v. Whether the decision is such that it does not appeal to the mind of a
reasonable person of ordinary prudence?
7. Accordingly, the impugned judgment and order dated 23.03.2022 passed in
Election Petition No. 38/2019 so far as dismissing the Election Petition filed by the
petitioner is set aside and a fresh decision be taken by considering all the relevant
aspects including an opportunity of hearing to the rival parties.
8. The aforesaid exercise be undertaken and completed expeditiously and
preferably within a period of 45 days from today.
9. Registry is directed to send back the LCR to the learned Tribunal as indicated
above.
10. Writ petition accordingly stands disposed of.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
