Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 16250 (GAU)

ELIZA BEGUM v. THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 9 ORS

WA/239/2025 · 2025-07-30

Arun Dev Choudhury

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010158702025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WA/239/2025 ELIZA BEGUM W/O RIBUL HOQUE, VILL. CHUTIA GAON, P.O. DHUMKURA, P.S. LAHARIGHAT, DIST. MORIGAON, ASSAM, PIN 782127 VERSUS 1.THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 9 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPTT., DISPUR, GUWAHATI, PIN 781006 2:THE COMMISSIONER PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPTT. PANJABARI GUWAHATI PIN 781037 3:THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSION ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE SECY. PANJABARI GUWAHATI ASSAM PIN 781037 4:DIST. COMMISSIONER MORIGAON P.O. AND P.S. MORIGAON DIST. MORIGAON ASSAM PIN 782105 5:CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER MORIGAON ZILLA PARISHAD P.O. AND P.S. MORIGAON DIST. MORIGAON ASSAM PIN 782105 6:THE CO DIST. COMMISSIONER LAHARIGHAT CO DIST. P.O. AND P.S. LAHARIGHAT DIST. MORIGAON ASSAM PIN 782127 Page No.# 2/4 7:THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OFFICE OF THE LAHARIGHAT CO DIST. P.O. AND P.S. LAHARIGHAT DIST. MORIGAON ASSAM PIN 782127 8:THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER LAHARIGHAT DEVELOPMENT BLOCK P.O. AND P.S. LAHARIGHAT DIST. MORIGAON ASSAM PIN 782127 9:THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER 40 NO. DHUMKURA GAON PANCHAYAT ASSAM PANCHAYAT ELECTION 2025 C/O OFFICE OF THE DIST. COMMISSIONER MORIGAON P.O. AND P.S. MORIGAON DIST. MORIGAON (ASSAM) PIN 782105 10:THE SECRETARY 40 NO DHUMKA GAON PANCHAYAT P.O. DHUMKA P.S. LAHARIGHAT DIST. MORIGAON ASSAM PIN 78212 For the Appellant(s) : Mr. H.R.A. Choudhury, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. J. Abedin and Mr. A.M. Ahmed, Advocates. For the Respondent(s) : Mr. S. Dutta, Standing Counsel, Panchayat and Rural Development Department. : Ms. A.B. Kayastha, Standing Counsel, Assam State Election Commission (ASEC). : Ms. S. Sarma, Government Advocate, Assam. – BEFORE – HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY 31.07.2025 (Ashutosh Kumar, CJ) Heard Mr. H.R.A. Choudhury, learned Senior Advocate for the appellant and Ms. S. Sarma, learned Government Advocate, Assam. Mr. S. Dutta, learned Page No.# 3/4 Standing Counsel, Panchayat and Rural Development Department and Ms. A. Kayastha, learned Standing Counsel, Assam State Election Commission are present. The appellant had contested the Panchayat Election, 2025 from Ward No.9 of Dhumkura Gaon Panchayat under Morigaon District and was returned successful. She was declared the Elected Member by the Deputy Commissioner, Morigaon on 20.05.2025. The first meeting of the Panchayat was to be convened on 23.06.2025 but because of the lack of quorum, the meeting was adjourned twice. In the meantime, it appears that the appellant was summoned by the Assistant Commissioner, Laharighat to appear before him with identity documents for the reason of an enquiry which had been initiated against her relating to her eligibility for contesting the election. The records reveal that perhaps the appellant had married while she was a minor. After the enquiry, she was disqualified and was removed from the post of Ward Member for the reason of her ineligibility of having breached the statutory law against child marriage. The matter went before the learned Single Judge, who has issued notice to the parties and has fixed the case for hearing. Mr. Choudhury, learned Senior Advocate for the appellant is aggrieved because the learned Single Judge did not pass any interim order, as prayed for, allowing the appellant to retain her seat till the time the matter is finally decided. Page No.# 4/4 It is argued on behalf of the appellant that she has a prima facie case and the balance of convenience is in her favour. We find from the records that though the appellant has been held to be disqualified/ineligible for contesting the Panchayat Election, but the seat vacated by her has been kept vacant. In that view of the matter, we do not find any perversity in the decision of the learned Single Judge in not granting interim relief in the meanwhile. We, therefore, dispose off this appeal with the hope and trust that the matter pending before the learned Single Judge would be decided at the earliest, giving opportunity to all others to put up their cause. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant