Page No.# 1/9 vs The State Of Assam And 5 Ors on 6 April, 2026

Author: Devashis Baruah

Bench: Devashis Baruah

                                                                  Page No.# 1/9

GAHC010178592025




                                                            2026:GAU-AS:5075

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

                         Case No. : WP(C)/4608/2025

         ELIZA BEGUM
         W/O RIBUL HOQUE, VILL. CHTIA GAON, P.O. DHUMKURA, P.S.
         LAHARIGHAT, DIST. MORIGAON, ASSAM, PIN 782127



         VERSUS

         THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS
         REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM,
         PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPTT., DISPUR, GUWAHATI,
         PIN 781006

         2:THE DIST. COMMISSIONER

          MORIGAON
          P.O. AND P.S. MORIGAON
          DIST. MORIGAON
          ASSAM
          PIN 782105

         3:THE CO DIST. COMMISSIONER

          LAHARIGHAT CO DIST.
          P.O. AND P.S. LAHARIGHAT
          DIST. MORIGAON
          ASSAM
          PIN 782127

         4:THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER

          OFFICE OF THE LAHARIGHAT CO DIST.
          P.O. AND P.S. LAHARIGHAT
          DIST. MORIGAON
                                   Page No.# 2/9

ASSAM
PIN 782127

5:THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER

LAHARIGHAT DEVELOPMENT BLOCK
P.O. AND P.S. LAHARIGHAT
DIST. MORIGAON
ASSAM
PIN 782127

6:THE SECY.

40 NO. DHUMKURA GAON PANCHAYAT
P.O. DHUMKURA
P.S. LAHARIGHAT
DIST. MORIGAON
ASSAM
PIN 782127

7:AKTARA BEGUM
W/O YARUL ISLAM
VILL. CHUTIAGAON
 P.O. DHUMKURA
 P.S LAHARIGHAT
 DIST- MORIGAON
ASSAM
 PIN-782127

8:NAZIMA YEASMIN BEGUM
W/O NURUL AMIN
VILL. CHUTIAGAON
 P.O. DHUMKURA
 P.S. LAHARIGHAT
 DIST- MORIGAON
ASSAM
 PIN-782127

9:NURUL AMIN

S/O ABDUL BAREK
VILL. CHUTIAGAON
P.O. DHUMKURA
PS LAHARIGHAT
DIST- MORIGAON
ASSAM
PIN-78212
                                                                      Page No.# 3/9




                                       BEFORE
                        HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH

For the Petitioner(s)      : Mr. A.M. Ahmed, Advocate


For the Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Roy, Govt. Advocate
                            Mr. S. Dutta, Standing Counsel


       Date on which judgment was reserved : NA

       Date of pronouncement of judgment       : 06.04.2026

       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 Mr. A.M. Ahmed, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. S.S. Roy, the learned Government Advocate appears on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2 to 5 and Mr. S. Dutta, the learned Standing Counsel appears on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 and 6.

2. The petitioner herein is aggrieved by the order dated 02.07.2025 passed by the District Commissioner, Morigaon whereby the petitioner was disqualified under Section 111(2)(f) of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994 (for short, "the Act of 1994") read with Rule 62(4)(b) and (c) of Page No.# 4/9

the Assam Panchayat (Constitution) Rules, 1995 (for short, "the Rules of 1995") on the ground that as per the report of Shri Pramod Sharma, ACS, Assistant Commissioner, Laharighat, the petitioner was a minor on the date of her marriage on 15.09.2013 and thereby the marriage was in violation to the provisions of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act (PCMA), 2006.

3. It has been submitted at the Bar that the issue involved in the instant writ petition is covered by the judgment and order dated 23.02.2026 passed in the case of Aysha Khatun Vs. State of Assam & 5 Others in WP(C) No. 7351/2025, reported in 2026:GAU-AS:2734.

4. The brief facts leading to the filing of the instant case, as it appears from the materials on record are that the petitioner contested for the post of Ward Member from Ward No. 9 of 40 No. Dhumkura Gaon Panchayat, and the petitioner's nomination was scrutinized on 12.04.2025 by the Authorized Officer. Thereupon, the names of the contesting candidates were published on 17.04.2025 by the Authorized Officer. In the polling held on 07.05.2025 and the counting which took place on 11.05.2025, the petitioner was declared the winning candidate, having secured 513 votes and the respondent No. 2 issued the winning certificate on 20.05.2025 in favour of the petitioner.

5. It is the further case of the petitioner that pursuant to a notice Page No.# 5/9

dated 30.06.2025 directing the petitioner to appear in an enquiry to be held at the office of the Co-District Commissioner, Laharighat, the respondent No. 3 herein conducted an inquiry and submitted a report on 02.07.2025. On the same date, i.e., 02.07.2025, the respondent No. 2 passed the impugned order whereby the petitioner was disqualified and removed from the post of Ward Member of Ward No. 9 of 40 No. Dhumkura Gaon Panchayat on the purported violation of 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. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has challenged the said order before this Court by filing the present writ petition.

6. The learned Coordinate Bench of this Court vide the order dated 13.08.2025 while issuing notice stayed the impugned order dated 02.07.2025.

7. In the backdrop of the above facts, the question that arises is whether the judgment of this Court in the case of Aysha Khatun (supra) covers the issues involved in the present writ petition.

8. It is relevant to take note of that the petitioner was disqualified vide the impugned order dated 02.07.2025 on the ground that the petitioner had incurred disqualification in terms with Section 111(2)(f) of the Act of 1994 read with Rule 62(4)(b) and (c) of the Rules of 1995. A further perusal of the impugned order reveals that an inquiry Page No.# 6/9

was conducted wherein it was found that the petitioner's date of birth is 01.01.1997 and the petitioner's date of marriage is 15.09.2013, and accordingly, the petitioner was a minor on the date of her marriage.

9. The materials on record would show that the impugned order is in violation to the principles of natural justice inasmuch as on 02.07.2025, the respondent No. 3 submitted the report and on the same date the impugned order was passed.

10. Be that as it may, the question arises as to whether the respondent No. 2 at all had the jurisdiction to pass the impugned order dated 02.07.2025.

11. It is apparent from the records that the disqualification alleged existed on the date of submission of the nomination paper by the petitioner.

12. This Court, in this regard, finds it relevant to take note of another judgment passed by this Court on 13.03.2026 in the case of Sri Ferdaus Rahman Mazumder Vs State of Assam & 6 Others , reported in 2026:GAU-AS:3725 wherein this Court had deduced the ratio laid

down in the case of Aysha Khatun (supra) in conjunction with the relevant provisions of the Constitution of India, the Act of 1994 and the Rules of 1995. Paragraph No.48 of the said judgment is reproduced herein under:-

Page No.# 7/9

"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 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.

Page No.# 8/9

(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 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."

13. Upon applying the aforementioned principles of law laid down by this Court in the case of Sri Ferdaus Rahman Mazumder (supra), it is the opinion of this Court that as the impugned order dated 02.07.2025 related to a disqualification pertaining to Section 111(2)(f) of the Act of 1994 read with Rule 62(4)(b) and (c) of the Rules of 1995 and the said disqualification was existing at the time of filing of the nomination paper by the petitioner, the District Commissioner, Morigaon, therefore, had no jurisdiction to decide the disqualification of the petitioner.

14. Accordingly, the writ petition stand disposed of with the following observations and directions:

(i) The impugned order dated 02.07.2025 as well as all consequential action(s) taken on the basis of the impugned Page No.# 9/9

order dated 02.07.2025 are set aside and quashed.