Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010152952025 2025:GAU-AS:9334 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/3922/2025 SURJANA BEGUM TAPADAR W/O MUJIBUR RAHMAND LASKAR R/O HARINADIK PO ANGLAR ABZAR PS BADARPUR DIST SRIBHUMI ASSAM PIN 788806 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS REP BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELPMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI 6 2:THE COMMISSIONER PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELPMENT DEPTT JURIPAR PANJABARI GUWAHATI 22 3:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER SRIBHUMI DIST SRIBHUMI ASSAM 4:THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER KARIMGANJ ZILLA PARISHAD SRIBHUMI ASSAM 5:THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER BADARPUR CHAITAYNANAGAR DEVELOPMENT BLOCK PO MAHAKAL PIN 788701 SRIBHUMI 6:THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER UMARPUR GAON PANCHAYAT OFFICE OF THE BADARPUR CHAITAYNANAGAR DEVELOPMENT BLOCK PO MAHAKAL PIN 788701 SRIBHUMI 7:THE SECRETARY Page No.# 2/5 UMARPUR GAON PANCHAYAT SRIBHUMI 8:AYESHA BEGUM C/O UMARPUR GAON PANCHAYAT PO ANGLAR BAZAR PS BADARPUR DIST SRIBHUMI ASSAM PIN 78880 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. J I BORBHUIYA, A B T HAQUE,MR. L MOHAN,MR A HOSSAIN Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, K A SODIAL,MR. S K TALUKDAR,FOR CAVEATOR,SC, P AND R.D. BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER Date : 21.07.2025 Heard Mr. J. I. Borbhuiya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. Dutta, learned Standing Counsel, Panchayat & Rural Development Department, appears for the respondent nos.1, 2, 4, 5, 6 & 7 as well as Mr. J. Handique, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent no.3 and Mr. S. K. Talukdar, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent no.8. 2. As agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties, the present writ petition is taken up for final consideration and disposal. 3. The petitioner by way of instituting the present proceedings has assailed the election of the Respondent no.8 as the President of No.17 Umarpur Gaon Panchayat, in the District of Sribhumi. 4. The contention of the petitioner is that while she had received 5(five) votes in the election for the post of President, the Respondent no.8 had secured only 4 votes and one of the votes casted in favour of the Respondent no.8 was rejected. However, it is the contention of the petitioner that the said vote was thereafter counted in favour of the Respondent no.8 illegally and accordingly, the votes garnered Page No.# 3/5 by her also was raised to 5(five). Thereafter a resolution was adopted by the house for having the election of the President by way of lottery(toss of coin). It is the contention of the petitioner, herein, that although she had called “tails” and the coin on being tossed, had come in favour of the call made by the petitioner, but the authorized Officer declared that the coin on being tossed had reflected “Heads” and declared that the Respondent no.8 who had called “heads” was successful. Accordingly, he submits that the Respondent No.8, was declared to be elected by misrepresentation and the same would require an interference from this Court. 5. Per contra, Mr. S. K. Talukdar, learned counsel, for the Respondent No.8, by referring to a resolution dated 03.07.2025, adopted by the house during the process of election of the President for having the selection made by lottery(toss of coin) has submitted that the said resolution would go to reveal that the petitioner had not objected to the rejected vote being counted in favour of the Respondent No.8. Rather, he submits that the petitioner on not being successful in the toss of the coin, so held, she had left the meeting along with 4 other supporters. Accordingly, he submits that the present writ petition is not maintainable inasmuch as basic grievance of the petitioner that the rejected vote was illegally counted in favour of the Respondent No.8, is not borne out of the records of the case and further she had not raised any objection in this connection during the process of election. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record. 7. The rival submissions of the parties to the proceedings brings on record disputed questions of facts which cannot be decided by this Court by way of considering the affidavits filed by the parties. 8. The Assam Panchayat Act, 1994, in Section 11 thereof has mandated that in the event of any dispute relating to the validity of the election of the President and the Vice President of the Gaon Panchayat, the same shall be decided by the District Commissioner. Provisions of Section 11 of the Assam Panchayat Act of 1994, being relevant is extracted hereinbelow : “11. Any dispute relating to the validity of the election of the Page No.# 4/5 President and the Vice-President of the Gaon Panchayat under this Act shall be decided by the Deputy Commissioner.” 9. A perusal of the provisions of Section 11, would go to reveal that any dispute relating to the validity of election of the President and Vice-President of the Gaon Panchayat, under this Act, shall be decided by the Jurisdictional District Commissioner. The petitioner, herein, has already approached the District Commissioner, Sribhumi District, by way of filing a representation dated 04.07.2025, raising a grievance with regard to the manner in which the Respondent No.8 was so elected as President of the Goan Panchayat. However, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the said representation has not be given its due consideration. 10. Accordingly, Mr. J. I. Borbhuiya, learned counsel, has prayed that a direction be issued to the District Commissioner, Sribhumi District to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner on 04.07.2025. 11. Mr. S. K. Talukdar, learned counsel, has also not disputed the said prayer made by the petitioner. 12. In view of the above consensus reached by the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered view that the dispute raised by the petitioner pertaining to the election of the Respondent No.8, is to be considered at the first instance by the jurisdictional District Commissioner. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to furnish a certified copy of this order along with further pleadings he desires to bring on record before the jurisdictional District Commissioner, within a period of 10(ten) days from today. The jurisdictional District Commissioner, on receipt of the certified copy of this order along with additional pleadings that may be brought on record by the petitioner, shall fix a date for hearing and shall issue notices thereon to the petitioner, Respondent No.8 and any other stakeholder involved in the matter. Upon hearing the parties to the proceedings and also appreciating the evidences Page No.# 5/5 brought on record by the parties, the jurisdictional District Commissioner, Sribhumi, shall proceed to pass a speaking orders determining the grievance raised by the petitioner in her representations dated 04.07.2025 and communicate the same to all concerned. 13. The Respondent No.8 and other stakeholders are granted liberty to bring on record their respective pleadings on or before the date of hearing scheduled in the matter by the jurisdictional District Commissioner, Sribhumi. 14. The exercise now required to be carried out in the matter for compliance of the directions passed hereinabove by the jurisdictional District Commissioner, Sribhumi, shall be so initiated and concluded within a period of 45(forty five) days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 15. With the above observation and directions, writ petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant