Page No.# 1/5 vs The State Of Assam And 5 Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 165 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Page No.# 1/5 vs The State Of Assam And 5 Others on 5 May, 2025

Author: Manish Choudhury

Bench: Manish Choudhury

                                                                Page No.# 1/5

GAHC010088182025




                                                          2025:GAU-AS:5555

                      THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
  (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                         Case No. : WP(C)/2250/2025

         JESMINA KHATUN
         W/O FAKHRUL HAQUE, R/O VILL. GARUBANDHA, P.O. SANDHA KHAITI,
         P.S. MAYONG, DIST. MORIGAON, ASSAM, PIN 782121



         VERSUS

         THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 OTHERS
         REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, DISPUR,
         GUWAHATI 781006

         2:THE STATE OF ASSAM

         REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF
         ASSAM
         PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPTT.
         DISPUR
         GUWAHATI 781006

         3:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECY.

          PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPTT.
          ASSAM
          PANJABARI
          JURIPAR
          GUWAHATI 781037

         4:THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSION

          REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF ELECTION OFFICER
          ADITYA TOWER
          2ND FLOOR
          NEAR DOWN TOWN HOSPITAL
                                                                                    Page No.# 2/5

             G.S. ROAD
             DISPUR
             GUWAHATI 781006

            5:THE DIST. COMMISSIONER

             MORIGAON
             DIST. MORIGAON
             ASSAM
             PIN 782105

            6:THE CO DIST. COMMISSIONER

             JAGIROAD
             DIST. MORIGAON
             ASSAM
             PIN 78241

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. S A AHMED, A. KHANAM,MR. F A AHMED

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM,




                                    BEFORE
                   HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY

                                           ORDER

Date : 05.05.2025

Heard Mr. S.A. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. K. Konwar, learned Additional Advocate General & Senior Standing Counsel, Panchayat & Rural Development Department for the respondent nos. 1, 2, 3, 5 & 6; and Mr. R. Dubey, learned Standing Counsel, Assam State Election Commission for the respondent no. 4.

2. In this writ petition instituted under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has raised a grievance that the petitioner's nomination paper submitted for contesting the election to the Panchayat as a Member to 4 no. Pavokati Gaon Panchayat in the district of Morigaon, Assam from 5 no. Garubandha Ward has been rejected by the Authorized Officer, appointed under Rule 16 and 22 of the Assam Panchayat [Constitution] Rules, 1995 to accept the nomination papers and scrutinize them and thereafter, either to accept or reject the nomination papers. The petitioner's contention is that after scrutiny of the nomination paper Page No.# 3/5

of the petitioner, the Authorized Officer rejected her nomination paper without informing the petitioner the cause of rejection of the petitioner's nomination paper.

3. The instant writ petition is preferred seeking setting aside of the decision to reject the nomination of the petitioner and for a direction to the respondent authorities to accept the nomination paper of the petitioner so as to allow the petitioner to contest the election to the post of Member of 4 no. Pavokati Gaon Panchayat in the district of Morigaon, Assam from 5 no. Garubandha Ward.

4. Mr. Dubey, learned Standing Counsel, Assam State Election Commission and Mr. Konwar, learned Additional Advocate General & Senior Standing Counsel, Panchayat & Rural Development Department have both submitted that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, at this stage, challenging acceptance or rejection of a nomination paper of a contesting candidate is not to be entertained as the petitioner has the option of presenting an election petition before the jurisdictional Panchayat Election Tribunal, constituted under Section 127 of the Assam Panchayat Act and a writ petition is clearly barred under Article 243O [b] of the Constitution read with Section 129 [b] of the Assam Panchayat Act. They have conjointly submitted that the issue has already been decided in an common Judgment & Order dated 29.04.2025 passed in writ petition, W.P.[C.] no. 2178/2025 [Sri Ranjan Gogoi and another vs. State of Assam and others] and two other writ petitions.

5. In Ranjan Gogoi [supra], this Court has inter-alia observed as under :-

44. Thus, the consistent principle which has emerged is that the term, 'election' is interpreted broadly to include all steps and proceedings commencing from the date of notification of election till the date of declaration of results. The submission of nomination papers, scrutiny of nomination papers, acceptance of nomination papers and rejection of nomination papers are all intermediate stages in an election process.

Improper acceptance of nomination paper of a candidate, who has ultimately been elected, would allow a rival contesting candidate to present an election Page No.# 4/5

petition before the jurisdictional Election Tribunal and the same may lead to setting aside of the result of the elected candidate. Similarly, improper rejection of nomination paper of a candidate is a ground to present an election petition for a contesting candidate. Once the process of election starts in the wider sense, then it is of utmost priority that the process of election is concluded according to the time-schedule. Any controversy or dispute arising at the intermediate stages can be postponed for decision till after the election process is over so as to ensure an uninterrupted election adhering to the time-schedule and so that the process of election is not protracted. Conduct of election to the Panchayats is of paramount importance in a democracy and the process is arduous and time-taking. There is involvement of huge manpower and resources. Interference in the intermediate stages of the election process is not ordinarily called for unless an exceptional case is made out, that too, when such interference is called for to promote the election process. It is only in a case where the wrong done during the intermediate stage cannot be undone after the end of the election process, the court can examine the question taking primarily into consideration the factors like the facts and circumstances of the case, whether such interference would interrupt or postpone the ongoing process of election or would facilitate a better process of election.

45. The above view is guided by the analysis done by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Election Commission of India vs. Ashok Kumar and others, reported in [2000] 8 SCC 216, where the Hon'ble Court after analyzing the two Constitution Bench decisions in Ponnuswami [supra] and Mohinder Singh Gill [supra], has summed up to the effect that if an election [the term election being widely interpreted so as to include all steps and entire proceedings commencing from the date of notification of election till the date of declaration of result] is to be called in question and which questioning may Page No.# 5/5

have the effect of interrupting, obstructing or protracting the election proceedings in any manner, the invoking of judicial remedy has to be postponed till after the completing of proceedings in elections.

6. As the issue raised in this writ petition is fully covered by the common Judgment & Order dated 29.04.2025, rendered in W.P.[C.] no. 2178/2025 [supra] and the petitioner has the option of presenting a election petition before the jurisdictional Panchayat Election Tribunal after declaration of the results as a contesting candidate, the writ petition is not entertained.

7. It is clarified that non-entertainment of the writ petition on the aforesaid ground, shall not preclude the petitioner as a contesting candidate to present an election petition before the jurisdictional Panchayat Election Tribunal within the stipulated period of limitation.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant