Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010083322025 2025:GAU-AS:5011 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/2106/2025 SMTI ANAMIKA DAS W/O SWAPAN DAS VILL NUTAN KANCHANPUR PO KANCHANPUR WORD NO 8 HOUSE NO 231 PO SILCHAR DIST CACHAR CACHAR, ASSAM PIN 788007 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 OTHERS REP BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM, PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GUWAHATI 6, ASSAM 2:THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSIONER ASSAM STATE ELECTION COMMISSION PANJABARI GUWAHATI 37 3:THE SECRETARY ASSAM STATE ELECTION COMMISSION PANJABARI GUWAHATI 37 4:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER CUM DISTRICT RETURNING OFFICER CACHAR SILCHAR ASSAM PIN 788001 5:THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COMMISSIONER CACHAR CACHAR SILCHAR 6:THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER TANPANG DEVELOPMENT BLOCK DIGOR SRIKONA CACHAR PIN 7880206 7:THE SECRETARY CHENGDUAR GAON PANCHAYAT CHANGDUAR DIST CACHAR ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. I ALAM, Page No.# 2/7 Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, SC, ELECTION COMMISSION. BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE LANUSUNGKUM JAMIR O R D E R 24.04.2025 Heard Mr. I. Alam, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K. Konwar, learned Additional Advocate General, Assam appearing for the respondent Nos. 1, 5, 6 & 7 and Mr. R. Dubey, learned Standing Counsel, Assam State Election Commission appearing for the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4. 2. The Assam State Election Commission by a Press Note dated 02.04.2025 decided to hold general elections to the Panchayats in the 27 (twenty seven) districts of the State. The Schedule contained in the Press Note indicates that there would be two phases of elections. In the first phase, the election would be held on 02.05.2025 and for the second phase on 07.05.2025. The last date for filing Nominations is indicated as 12.04.20254 for both the first phase and second phase. Further, the date of publication of validly nominated candidates is also indicated as 12.04.2025 for both the phases. The date of withdrawal of candidature and the date of publication of list of contesting candidates is indicated as 17.04.2025 for both the phases and the counting of votes would take place on 11.05.2025. 3. Pursuant to the Press Note dated 02.04.2025, the petitioner submitted her Nomination Paper for Group Member of Gaon Panchayat Page No.# 3/7 under Ward No.8 of 98 No. Chengduar Gaon Panchayat on 11.04.2025 and to that effect, an acknowledgement receipt of submission of Nomination Paper was issued to the petitioner on 11.04.2025 by the authorized officer, Panchayat Election, 2025. In the said acknowledgement receipt, it is also stated that the nomination will be scrutinized on 12.04.2025. The Authorized Officer, Panchayat Election, 2025, after scrutinizing the Nomination Paper of the petitioner, rejected her candidature on 12.04.2025 on the ground that the petitioner is not an elector of the Constituency i.e. Ward No.8 of 98 No. Chengduar Gaon Panchayat and she is an elector of Ward No.7, 98 No. Chengduar Gaon Panchayat. Being aggrieved, the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present writ petition. 4. Mr. I. Alam, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the rejection of the candidature of the petitioner for Ward No.8 of 98 No. Chengduar Gaon Panchayat was wrongly done on the basis of the Draft Electoral Roll, which was generated on 30.03.2025. He submits that as per the Final Electoral Roll for Panchayat Election, 2025, which was already issued by the Assam State Election Commission, the name of the petitioner appears at Serial No.234 under House No.231 with EPIC No.LSYO407395 under Ward No.8, 98 No. Chengduar Gaon Panchayat. The said corrected Final Electoral Roll was published on 28.10.2024 and therefore, the rejection of the Nomination Paper of the petitioner on the basis of the Draft Electoral Roll, which was generated on 30.03.2025 is highly illegal and arbitrary. He also submits that being aggrieved with the rejection of the petitioner’s Nomination Papers, the petitioner filed a representation before the District Commissioner cum District Returning Page No.# 4/7 Officer, Cachar, Silchar on 14.04.2025, which is also yet to be considered till date. Under the circumstances, he submits that the petitioner be permitted to contest in the ensuing Panchayat Election to be held on 02.05.2025 for Group Member of Ward No.8 under 98 No. Chengduar Gaon Panchayat in the district of Cachar. Placing reliance in the case of Election Commission of India through Secretary –vs- Ashok Kumar and others, reported in (2000) 8 SCC 216, he submits that the present writ petition has been filed not with the purpose of interrupting, obstructing or delaying the progress of Election proceedings, however, the present writ petition is filed praying for the judicial intervention of this Court to merely correct or smoothen the progress of the Election proceedings. 5. Mr. R. Dubey, learned Standing Counsel, Assam State Election Commission appearing for the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 on the other hand submits that there should be no interference by the Court at this stage when the process for the Panchayat Election has already been set in motion by the Press Note dated 02.04.2025. He submits that if the petitioner is aggrieved, the only option left for the petitioner is to file an Election Petition after declaration of the Panchayat Election results under Section 129(b) of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994. He therefore, submits that the present writ petition should be dismissed. 6. Mr. K. Konwar, learned Additional Advocate General, Assam also endorses the submission made by the learned Standing Counsel, Assam State Election Commission. 7. Article 243-O of the Constitution of India bars the interference by Courts in electoral matters. Further, Article 243-O(b) of the Constitution of India provides that no election to any Panchayat shall be called in question Page No.# 5/7 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. 8. Section 129(b) of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994 provides that no election to any Panchayat shall be called in question except by an Election Petition presented within sixty days from the date of declaration of election results to the Tribunal constituted under Section 127. 9. In the case of N.P. Ponnuswami –vs- Returning Officer, Namakkal Constituency and others, reported in (1952) 1 SCC 94, a Constitutional Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- “It seems to me that the word “election” has been used in Part XV of the Constitution in the wide sense, that is to say, to connote the entire procedure to be gone through to return a candidate to the legislature. The use of the expression “conduct of elections” in Article 324 specifically points to the wide meaning, and that meaning can also be read consistently into the other provisions which occur in Part XV including Article 329(b). That the word “election” bears this wide meaning whenever we talk of elections in a democratic country, is borne out by the fact that in most of the books on the subject and in several cases dealing with the matter, one of the questions mooted is, when the election begins.” 10. Further, in the case of Ashok Kumar and others (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- “For convenience sake we would now generally sum up our conclusions by partly restating what the two Constitution Benches have already said and then adding by clarifying what follows therefrom in view of the analysis made by us hereinabove: (1) 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. Page No.# 6/7 (2) Any decision sought and rendered will not amount to “calling in question an election” if it subserves the progress, of the election and facilitates the completion of the election. Anything done towards completing or in furtherance of the election proceedings cannot be described as questioning the election. (3) Subject to the above, the action taken or orders issued by Election Commission are open to judicial review on the well-settled parameters which enable judicial review of decisions of statutory bodies such as on a case of mala fide or arbitrary exercise of power being made out or the statutory body being shown to have acted in breach of law. (4) Without interrupting, obstructing or delaying the progress of the election proceedings, judicial intervention is available if assistance of the court has been sought for merely to correct or smoothen the progress of the election proceedings, to remove the obstacles therein, or to preserve a vital piece of evidence if the same would be lost or destroyed or rendered irretrievable by the time the results are declared and stage is set for invoking the jurisdiction of the court. (5) The court must be very circumspect and act with caution while entertaining any election dispute though not hit by the bar of Article 329(b) but brought to it during the pendency of election proceedings. The court must guard against any attempt at retarding, interrupting, protracting or stalling of the election proceedings. Care has to be taken to see that there is no attempt to utilize the court’s indulgence by filing a petition outwardly innocuous but essentially a subterfuge or pretext for achieving an ulterior or hidden end. Needless to say that in the very nature of the things the court would act with reluctance and shall not act, except on a clear and strong case for its intervention having been made out by raising the pleas with particulars and precision and supporting the same by necessary material.” 11. In the case of Pratap Chandra Mehta –vs- State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh and others, reported in (2011) 9 SCC 573, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has also held as under :- “Election is an expression of wide connotation which embraces the whole procedure of election and is not confined to final result thereof. Rejection or acceptance of nomination paper is included in this term. This Court, in N.P. Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer held that the word “election” has been used in Part XV of the Constitution in a broad sense, that is to say, to connote the entire procedure to be followed to return a candidate to the legislature and even the expression “conduct of elections” in Article 324 specifically points to this wide meaning and the meaning which can be read consistently into other provisions occurring in the Constitution.” Page No.# 7/7 12. Coming to the case in hand and after a consideration of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court is of the considered opinion that a challenge to an election has to be by way of an Election Petition as provided under the Statute. Further, it is only when a full proof case is made out in extra ordinary circumstances, this Court would invoke its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the present case in hand, the date fixed for the General Election of the Panchayats in Assam is already scheduled on 02.05.2025 and 07.05.2025. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that as the election process has already been set in motion, interference at this stage would not be in the interest of justice. 13. Under the circumstances, this writ petition is accordingly dismissed. 14. Notwithstanding the dismissal of the writ petition, the petitioner is given the liberty to file an Election Petition under Section 129(b) of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994, if so advised. JUDGE Comparing Assistant