Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010186702025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/5066/2025 MAHIDUL ISLAM S/O RAHMAT ULLAH, VILL- BALIKURI, P.O.- BALIKURI, P.S.-KALGACHIA, DIST- BARPETA, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 8 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM 2:THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-781006 3:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER CUM DISTRICT ELECTION OFFICER BARPETA DIST- BARPETA ASSAM PIN-781301 4:THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF ZILA PARISHAD BARPETA DIST- BARPETA ASSAM PIN-781301 5:THE DEPUTY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER BARPETA DISTRICT BARPETA Page No.# 2/3 ASSAM PIN-781301 6:THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER KALGACHIA BLOCK DIST- BARPETA ASSAM PIN-781301 7:THE SECRETARY 45 NO. SONAPUR RUBHI GAON PANCHAYAT P.O.- BALIKURI DIST- BARPETA ASSAM PIN-781319 8:LUTFA KHATUN W/O LUKMAN ALI VILL- RUBHI P.O.- BALIKURI DIST- BARPETA ASSAM PIN-781319 9:BADAR UDDIN S/O JAHERA KHATUN VILL- HASANPUR P.O.- BALIKURI DIST- BARPETA ASSAM PIN-78131 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR N ZAMAN, H G DAISY Advocate for the Respondent : SC, P AND R.D., GA, ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI ORDER 01.09.2025 Heard Shri N. Zaman, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri S. Dutta, learned Standing Counsel, Panchayat and Rural Development Department Page No.# 3/3 and Shri H. Sarma, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam. Both the learned counsel for the respondents have however questioned the locus of the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that he has put to challenge the election of the respondent nos. 7 & 8 as Ward Members of the 45 No. Sonapur Rubhi Gaon Panchayat under the Kalgachia Anchalik Panchayat in the district of Barpeta. On a specific query, it has been replied by the learned counsel for the petitioner that apart from the petitioner being a voter, he belonged to a different ward whereas the respondent nos. 7 & 8 have been elected from the different wards. Therefore, it s clear that the petitioner does not have the locus to maintain the present writ petition. Though the allegation is of violation of certain statute regarding child marriage, this Court is of the opinion that unless such grievance is raised by an appropriate person, this Court will not be inclined to entertain such a writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant