Page No.# 1/7 vs The State Of Assam And 7 Ors
2025 Latest Caselaw 170 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Page No.# 1/7 vs The State Of Assam And 7 Ors on 5 May, 2025

Author: Manish Choudhury

Bench: Manish Choudhury

                                                                     Page No.# 1/7

GAHC010093292025




                                                               2025:GAU-AS:5554

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

                           Case No. : WP(C)/2380/2025

         JAHANARA KHATUN @ JAHANARA BEGUM
         W/O FAKAR UDDIN, R/O DIGHALTARI PT. II, P.O.- PATAMARI, DIST-
         DHUBRI, ASSAM, PIN-783324



         VERSUS

         THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 7 ORS.
         REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE
         GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT
         DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006

         2:THE COMMISSIONER
          PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT
         ASSAM
          JURIPAR
          PANJABARI
          GUWAHATI-781022

         3:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
          DHUBRI
          DIST- DHUBRI
         ASSAM
          PIN-783301

         4:THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
          DHUBRI ZILLA PARISHAD
          DIST- DHUBRI
         ASSAM
          PIN-782105

         5:THE RETURNING OFFICER/AUTHORISED OFFICER
          74/9 (K) DIGHALTARI PT-II GAON PANCHAYAT
                                                                                    Page No.# 2/7

             P.O. AND P.S.- PATAMARI
             DIST- DHUBRI
             ASSAM
             PIN-783301

            6:SABINA YASMIN
             R/O P.O. AND P.S.- PATAMARI
             DIST- DHUBRI
            ASSAM
             PIN-783301

            7:MAFIDA KHATUN
             R/O P.O. AND P.S.- PATAMARI
             DIST- DHUBRI
            ASSAM
             PIN-783301

            8:MARIYAM AKHTAR HUSSAIN
             R/O P.O. AND P.S.- PATAMARI
             DIST- DHUBRI
            ASSAM
             PIN-78330

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR A W AMAN, SAMIM RAHMAN,MR. SURAJIT DAS,MR
SARFRAZ NAWAZ

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, P AND R.D., GA, ASSAM




                                    BEFORE
                   HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY

                                           ORDER

Date : 05.05.2025

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

2. In this writ petition instituted under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has claimed that she submitted her nomination paper to contest the election to Dighaltari Pt-II Gaon Panchayat from Ward no. 9 before the Authorized Officer, appointed under Rule 16 and Page No.# 3/7

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 paper. The petitioner has stated that apart from the petitioner, three other candidates submitted their nomination papers before the Authorized Officer. The Authorized Officer after scrutiny of the nomination papers of all the candidates published a list of contesting candidates, whose nomination papers were found to be valid. In the list, the petitioner's name was not included. The petitioner has contended that her nomination paper ought not to have been rejected by the Authorized Officer as the petitioner has submitted all the requisite documents along with the nomination paper. Moreover, it is the grievance of the petitioner that the reason of rejection has never been supplied to the petitioner. The petitioner has stated that a representation was submitted before the respondent authorities on 18.4.2025, immediately after publication of the list of valid contesting candidates on 17.4.2025.

3. 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, in unison 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.

4. 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 Page No.# 4/7

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 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 Page No.# 5/7

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 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.

5. As the issue raised in this writ petition with regard to rejection of the nomination paper of the petitioner 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.

6. The petitioner in this writ petition has sought to exercise his right to get elected to an office of the Panchayat. But, her endeavour to get elected has got snapped in the mid-stream with non-acceptance of her nomination paper by the Authorized Officer. In so far as the grievance of the petitioner that she has not been informed the reason for rejection of her nomination paper is concerned, Mr. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that if the nomination of the petitioner was rejected for one reason or another, the petitioner at least has the right to know the reason why her nomination has been rejected. Such reason ought to have been provided to the petitioner by the Returning Officer in writing. Only if the ground of rejection is known, she could be in a position to present an effective election petition.

7. Mr. Dubey, learned Standing Counsel, ASEC has submitted that the Assam State Election Commission is following the Guidelines laid down in the Handbook for Returning Officer, 2023, published by the Election Commission of India in matters of scrutiny of nomination papers and other ancillary matters. He has referred to Clause 6.10.2 of the Page No.# 6/7

Handbook to submit that in case an Authorized Officer rejects a nomination then he is required to record the reasons for rejection of the nomination on the spot and supply a certified copy of the order immediately to the candidate whose nomination has been rejected by him. Mr. Dubey has fairly submitted that in case the reason for rejection of the nomination has not been furnished to the petitioner in this writ petition by the Authorized Officer, then a direction is called for to that effect.

8. As it is submitted by Mr. Dubey, learned Standing Counsel, ASEC that the Authorized Officers appointed under Rule 22 of the Assam Panchayat [Constitution] Rules, 1995 have been instructed by the Assam State Election Commission to follow the guidelines in the Handbook for Returning Officer, 2023 published by the Election Commission of India, Clause 6.10.2 of the Handbook is of relevance. Clause 6.10.2 is quoted hereinbelow for ready reference :-

Clause 6.10.2 : Returning Officer should invariably record the reasons for rejecting a nomination paper on the spot and supply certified copies of the order immediately in cases where the nomination papers filed by a candidate have been rejected by him/her. This may be done even in the absence of an application from a candidate and without payment. Where one of the nomination papers of a candidate is accepted and the other one is rejected on valid ground by Returning Officer, in that case, he/ she shall supply a certified copy of his/her order mentioning the reason of rejection of the other nomination paper to the candidate, if he applies for it. It may be noted that if any of the nomination paper is found valid and accepted, that candidate will be a validly nominated candidate even if the other nomination papers are rejected.

9. From the afore-quoted Clause 6.10.2, it is discernible that a Authorized Officer should invariably record the reasons for rejecting a nomination paper on the spot and supply a certified copy of the order immediately in case where the nomination paper filed by the candidate has been rejected by him/her. It has further been stressed that a certified copy of the order recording the reason is to be furnished to the candidate even in the absence of an Page No.# 7/7

application from a candidate and without payment.

10. Having regard to the grievance raised by the petitioner in this writ petition and to the Guidelines which are followed by the Assam State Election Commission including the Authorized Officers authorized under Rule 22 of the Assam Panchayat [Constitution] Rules, 1995, this Court is of the considered view that if the reason for rejection of the nomination paper is not furnished by the Authorized Officer till date to the petitioner, then the same should be furnished to the petitioner by the Authorized Officer if the petitioner approaches him/her. Therefore, the Authorized Officer who had scrutinized and rejected the nomination paper of the petitioner is directed to furnish a certified copy of his/her order recording the reason[s] for rejection of the nomination paper of the petitioner immediately on submission of a certified copy of this Order to him/her by the petitioner.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant