Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010085202025 2025:GAU-AS:5340 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/2141/2025 MD SHAIED AHMED SON OF LATE ALI AHMED, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE PALAHJURI, GARUKHUTI, MOIRABARI, MORIGAON, ASSAM PIN 782106 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 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 MORIGAON DISTRICT - MORIGAON ASSAM. PIN 782105 4:THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER MORIGAON ZILLA PARISHAD MORIGAON ASSAM PIN 782105 5:THE CO DISTRICT COMMISSIONER LAHARIGHAT CO DISTRICT P.O. AND P.S. LAHARIGHAT DISTRICT MORIGAON ASSAM. PIN - 782127 Page No.# 2/6 6:THE RETURNING OFFICER AUTHORISED OFFICER 56 NO. BORCHOLA GAON PANCHAYAT P.O. AND P.S. LAHARIGHAT DISTRICT - MORIGAON ASSAM. PIN - 782127 7:MD ABUL NASUR SON OF ABUL KASEM RESIDENT OF VILLAGE PALAHJURI GARUKHUTI MOIRABARI MORIGAON ASSAM PIN 78210 Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. P. KASHYAP, M K BORAH,MR P BHARDWAJ Advocate for the Respondent : SC, P AND R.D., GA, ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY ORDER Date : 01-05-2025 Heard Mr. M.K. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. P. Bharadwaj, learned counsel for the petitioners; Mr. K. Konwar, learned Additional Advocate General, Assam and Senior Standing Counsel, Panchayat and Rural Development Department for the respondent nos. 1 – 5; and Mr. R. Dubey, learned Standing Counsel, Assam State Election Commission for the respondent no. 6. 2. The petitioner has approached this Court by the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking inter alia a writ in the nature of certiorari for setting aside and quashing an impugned notification issued under the hand of the respondent no. 6, whereby, the respondent no. 6 has declared that the Page No.# 3/6 nomination paper of the respondent no. 7, impleaded herein, has been accepted to contest the election for the member of Gaon Panchayat from Ward no. 203 of 56 no. Borchola Gaon Panchayat. The petitioner has also challenged an action on the part of the respondent no. 6 as the respondent no. 6 has not included the nomination of the petitioner in the list of candidates whose nominations are found valid. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that he, in order to contest the election for the post of Gaon Panchayat Member from Ward no. 203 under 56 no. Borchola Gaon Panchayat, submitted his nomination on 11.04.2025 before the respondent no. 6, who is the Returning Officer/Authorised Officer appointed under Rule 22 of the Assam Panchayat [Constitution] Rules, 1995. 4. As per sub-rule [2] of Rule 22, such Returning Officer/Authorised Officer is entrusted to discharge the following duties and responsibilities : [a] examine the nomination papers on the date, time and place notified for the purpose under the Rule; [b] give the candidate or his proposer reasonable opportunity to examine the nomination paper and shall decide on the spot, the objections, if there be any, by summary enquiry. He may either on his own initiative or an objection raised, reject any nomination on any of the following grounds :- [i] that the candidate is not qualified under the provisions of the act; [ii] that he is disqualified from being chosen to fill the office or that he is disqualified since requisite amount of security deposit has not been paid; [iii] that there has been failure to comply with any of the provisions of these Rules; and [iv] that the signature or thumb-impression of the candidate or the proposer is not genuine. It has been provided that nothing in sub-clauses [iii] and [iv] above shall be Page No.# 4/6 deemed to authorise the rejection of the nomination paper of any candidate on the ground of irregularity in respect of a nomination paper, if the candidate has duly nominated by means of other nomination paper in respect of which no irregularity has been committed. 5. Mr. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that two candidates submitted nominations to contest in the Panchayat Election for the member from Ward no. 203 under 56 no. Borchola Gaon Panchayat. The date, 12.04.2025 was fixed for scrutiny of nominations by the Returning Officer/Authorised Officer. Though the petitioner submitted his nomination papers along with all the requisite documents and certificates, the petitioner, to his surprise, found that his name was not included in the list of candidates whose nominations were found valid. It impliedly meant that the nomination of the petitioner was rejected. Mr. Choudhury has further contended that no reason was assigned for rejection of the petitioner’s nomination by the Returning Officer/Authorised Officer. 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 his nomination has been rejected. Such reason ought to have been provided to the petitioner by the Returning Officer/Authorised Officer in writing. 6. 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. He has referred to Clause 6.10.2 of the Handbook to submit that in case a Returning Officer/Authorised Officer Page No.# 5/6 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 of the petitioner has not been furnished to the petitioner by the Returning Officer/Authorised Officer in the case in hand, then a direction is called for to that effect. 7. As it is submitted by Mr. Dubey, learned Standing Counsel, ASEC that the Returning Officers/Authorised 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 :- 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. 8. From the afore-quoted Clause 6.10.2, it is discernible that a Returning Page No.# 6/6 Officer/Authorised 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 application from a candidate and without payment. 9. Having regard to the grievance raised by the petitioner in this writ petition, as emerged from the submissions of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, and to the guidelines which are followed by the Assam State Election Commission including the Returning Officer/Authorised Officer 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 of the petitioner is not furnished by the Returning Officer/Authorised Officer till date to him, then the same should be furnished to the petitioner by the Returning Officer/Authorised Officer if the petitioner approaches him. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Returning Officer/Authorised Officer [the respondent no. 6] to furnish a certified copy of his 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 by the petitioner. 10. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No cost. JUDGE Comparing Assistant