Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010197602025 2025:GAU-AS:12158 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/5220/2025 SADDAM HUSSAIN LASKAR AND 2 ORS S/O- BASIR UDDIN LASKAR, R/O- VILL.- BOALIPAR PART-III, P.O. BOALIPAR BAZAR, P.S. AND DIST. HAILAKANDI, ASSAM, PIN- 788155. 2: ABDUL BASIT CHOUDHURY S/O- ABDUL HOQUE CHOUDHURY R/O- VILL.- SAYEDBOND PART-I P.O. KALIBARI BAZAR P.S. AND DIST. HAILAKANDI ASSAM-788150. 3: IMRAN HUSSAIN LASKAR S/O- MIZAZUL HOQUE LASKAR R/O- VILL.- SAYEDBOND PART-III P.O. KALIBARI BAZAR P.S. AND DIST. HAILAKANDI ASSAM-788150 VERSUS THE ASSAM STATE ELECTION COMMISSION AND 8 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSIONER, ASSAM, PANJABARI ROAD, PANJABARI, GUWAHATI-37. 2:THE DISTRICT ELECTION COORDINATOR CUM DISTRICT COMMISSIONER DIST. HAILAKANDI PIN- 788151 ASSAM 3:ELECTION OFFICER HAILAKANDI PANCHAYAT ELECTION 2025 Page No.# 2/7 DIST. HAILAKANDI PIN- 788151 ASSAM 4:THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER ALGAPUR DEVELOPMENT BLOCK DIST. HAILAKANDI PIN- 788150. 5:JASMIN SULTANA CHOUDHURY W/O- KHALIL UDDIN BARBHUIYA R/O- VILL.- MAHANPUR PART-I P.O. ALGAPUR PART-V P.S. ALGAPUR DIST. HAILAKANDI-788150. 6:MASUK UDDIN LASKAR S/O- LATE YASIN ALI LASKAR R/O- VILL.- SAYEDBOND PART-I P.O. KALIBARI BAZAR DIST. HAILAKANDI-788150. 7:MONTAZ ALI LASKAR S/O- LATE NIMAR ALI LASKAR R/O- VILL.- SAYEDBOND PART-III P.O. KALIBARI BAZAR HAILAKANDI-788150. 8:PARBIN SULTANA MAZUMDER W/O- SAHA ALOM LASKAR R/O- VILL.- ALGAPUR PART-V P.O. KALIBARI BAZAR HAILAKANDI-788150. 9:DIRECTOR OF SANSKRIT EDUCATION KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI-781019 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR M J QUADIR, A.ISLAM,MR. A K HANNAN Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, FOR CAVEATOR,H YEASMIN,MR H I CHOUDHURY,MR. B.H. TAPADAR,SC, ASEC Page No.# 3/7 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY ORDER 08.09.2025 1. Heard Mr. M. J. Quadir, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. T. J. Mahanta, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. H. I. Choudhury, learned counsel for the Caveator/respondent Nos. 5, 6, 7 and 8. 2. The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed seeking cancelation of the election of respondent Nos. 5, 6, 7 and 8 as Ward Members of Ward No. 1, 8, 9 and 10 respectively of Sayedbond Gaon Panchayat in the district of Hailakandi on the ground of they having acquired disqualification for not having required educational qualification. 3. The background facts of the present case is that the respondent Nos. 5, 6, 7 and 8 got elected as Ward members of Ward No. 1, 8, 9 and 10 respectively of Sayedbond Gaon Panchayat in the district of Hailakandi. The petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 also contested the election for being elected as member of Ward No. 1 and 8 of the said Gaon Panchayat respectively, but were defeated. The petitioner No. 1 claims to be a voter. 4. They raised a grievance against respondent Nos. 5, 6, 7 and 8 seeking their disqualification on the ground that the respondent Nos. 5, 6, 7 and 8, did not possess the required educational qualification which entails them to be disqualified. 5. Section 111(2) of the Act, 1994 outlines the conditions and procedure for disqualification of Panchayat Members, primarily on the ground of having more than two living children from a single or multiple parents, subject to the condition Page No.# 4/7 that, such disqualification shall not be applicable in respect those persons, who have more than two children prior to date of commencement of this Act, 1994. 6. The condition and procedure of disqualification under Subsection 2 of Section 111 of the Act, 1994 are enumerated under Rule 62 of the Rules, 1995. Rules 62 (1) (b) empowers the Government or the concerned district authority to remove any President/ Vice-president or Member of Zila Parishad, Anchalik Parishad and Gaon Panchayat, if he or she is having more than two children from single and multiple parents, prior to 19.03.2018 and give birth to an additional child. However, there is an exception to such provision, when the second child birth are twins and when the first child birth are triplets. 7. In terms of Rules 62(1)(f), the Gaon Panchayat Secretary, on receipt of information of such additional child birth, is mandated to inform it to the concerned District Commissioner through the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad. Such provision further prescribes that, thereafter the concerned District Commissioner is to examine the matter and on establishment of fact, is empowered to remove such President, Vice-president, Member etc., under intimation to the State Government, as well as to the Assam State Election Commission. 8. From the aforesaid mandate of law and the procedure prescribed, it is very clear that certain procedure has been laid down under Rule 62 for the removal of a Member of Gaon Panchayat, President, Vice-president etc. and such procedure, when it relates to Gaon Panchayat, is to be initiated at the end of the Gaon Panchayat Secretary, on receipt of information and it is to be routed to the District Commissioner, through the office of the Block Development Officer and the Chief Executive Officer of Zila Parishad. 9. Now from the Rule, 62(1)(f) what is seen is that the concerned District Page No.# 5/7 Commissioner/ Deputy Commissioner is empowered to examine the matter and such District Commissioner can remove a President, Vice-President, Member of Goan Panchayat concerned, on establishment of such fact. Therefore, to have a satisfaction that fact alleged is established, it shall necessarily require an enquiry and adjudication, may be summary in nature. 10. There is no doubt in the mind of the court that the District Commissioner/ Deputy Commissioner is having jurisdiction to conduct an enquiry for proper adjudication/ to get the fact established, so as to come into a just conclusion. 11. It is true that in the Act, 1994 and the Rules, 1995, no specific procedure has been outlined / prescribed for such hearing. However, in absence of specific exclusion of right of hearing of the elected candidate against whom disqualification is sought, it is required to be given a reasonable opportunity of hearing. 12. The principle of natural justice mandates that a reasonable opportunity must be given to a person before taking any action against him. The adjudicating authority must disclose all the material placed before it and must give reasonable opportunity to the affected to submit his/ their case. A fair hearing means that a person against whom an adverse order is passed should be informed of the charges against him giving him an opportunity to submit his explanation to the charges and the person also has a right to know the material on the basis of which the allegation is proposed to be decided, which is totally absent in the present case. 13. Thus, there is no hesitation in the mind of this Court that such an application for disqualification is to be determined as prescribed under Section 111(2)(a) of the Assam Panchayat (Amendment) Act, 2018 read with Rule 62(1)(b) of the Assam Panchayat (Constitution) Rules, 1995, by giving reasonable opportunity of Page No.# 6/7 hearing to the parties. 14. Therefore, the petitioners having such remedy, this Court shall not exercise its discretionary power to issue a direction which amounts to declaration of disqualification of the respondents and which requires “establishment of facts”. 15. At this stage, Mr. Mahanta, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent Nos. 5, 6, 7 and 8, contends that the Deputy Commissioner is not vested with the jurisdiction to entertain the application filed by the petitioners for disqualification, more particularly, for want of jurisdictional fact required for such determination. According to Mr. Mahanta, learned Senior Counsel, though the Deputy Commissioner can disqualify a candidate when the said candidate does not possess required educational qualification, however, in the case in hand, the allegation of the petitioners as regards the genuineness of the certificate, cannot be determined by the Deputy Commissioner in exercise of its power under Section 111(2)(a) of the Assam Panchayat (Amendment) Act, 2018 read with Rule 62(1)(b) of the Assam Panchayat (Constitution) Rules, 1995. 16. This Court is of the opinion that until and unless the jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner in the given facts of the present case, is assailed by the respondents before this Court, this Court would not like to enter into such issues inasmuch as the respondents shall have liberty to raise such jurisdictional issue before the Deputy Commissioner. 17. Accordingly, for the reasons recorded hereinabove, the writ petition stands dismissed. 18. It is needless to say that the Deputy Commissioner who is in the session of the dispute in terms of Section 111(2)(a) of the Assam Panchayat (Amendment) Act, 2018 read with Rule 62(1)(b) of the Assam Panchayat (Constitution) Rules, 1995, shall proceed with the determination and bring it to a logical conclusion. While Page No.# 7/7 determining the same, the Deputy Commissioner, shall also take note of objection raised by the respondent Nos. 5, 6, 7 and 8 and they may also raise such question before the Deputy Commissioner by filing appropriate application, if not filed earlier. JUDGE Comparing Assistant