Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010218812025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/5756/2025 ANJUARA BEGUM WIFE OF RASHID AKAND,RESIDENT OF VILLAGEBOROBALU, POST OFFICEHAZIRHAT, POLICE STATIONSUKCHAR, DISTRICT- SOUTHSALMARA MANKACHAR, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 9 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THECOMMISSIONER ANDSECRETARY TO THEGOVERNMENT OF ASSAM,PANCHAYAT AND RURALDEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6, DISPUR,GUWAHI- 781006. 2:THE ASSAM STATE ELECTION COMMISSION REPESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DISPUR GUWAHATI-06. 3:THE COMMISSIONER PANCHAYAT AND RURALDEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PANJABARI GUWAHATI-781017 4:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER SOUTHSALMARA MANKACHAR HATSINGIMARI DISTRICSOUTH SALMARA MANKACHAR ASSAM PIN- 783135. 5:THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER Page No.# 2/6 ZILLA PARISHAD SOUTH SALMARA MANKACHAR POLICE STATION- SOUTHSALMARA DISTRICT- SOUTHSALMARA MANKACHAR ASSAM PIN-783131. 6:THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CUM DISTRICT CHILD MARRIAGE PROHIBITION OFFICER SOUTH SALMARA MANKACHAR HATSINGIMARI DISTRICT- SOUTH SALMARA MANKACHAR ASSAM PIN783135. 7:THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER FEKAMARI DEVELOPMENT BLOCK POSTOFFICE- FEKAMARI POLICE STATION- SOUTH SALMARA DISTRICT- SOUTH SALMARA MANKACHAR ASSAM PIN783135. 8:THE PRESIDENT HAZIRHAT GAON PANCHAYAT POST OFFICE- SUKCHAR POLICE STATION- SUKCHAR DISTRICT- SOUTH SALMARA MANKACHAR ASSAM PIN783135. 9:THE SECRETARY HAZIRHAT GAON PANCHAYAT POST OFFICE- SUKCHAR POLICE STATION- SUKCHAR DISTRICT- SOUTH SALMARA MANKACHAR ASSAM PIN- 783135. 10:MONOWARA KHATUN W/O ATAUR RAHMAN RESIDENT OF VILL- BOROBALLI P.O. SUKCHAR Page No.# 3/6 P.S. SUKCHAR DIST. SOUTH SALMARA MANKACHAR ASSAM PIN-783135 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. K N CHOUDHURY, MR. D J DAS,MD I H LASKAR,MR. M AHMED Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, FOR CAVEATOR,MR. A Z AHMED,SC, ASEC,SC, P AND R.D. BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI ORDER 25.09.2025 Heard Shri KN Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri M Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri J Handique, learned State Counsel, Assam; Shri S Dutta, learned Standing Counsel, P&RD Department, Assam; Ms. AB Kayastha, learned counsel appearing on instructions of Shri R Dubey, learned Standing Counsel, ASEC and Shri HRA Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri AZ Ahmed, learned counsel for the respondent no. 10 who has entered appearance by filing a Caveat. 2. Considering the facts and circumstances, the issue involved and as agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is taken up for disposal at the motion stage. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is against an order dated 10.09.2025 passed by the District Commissioner, South Salmara Mankachar, Hatsingimari, whereby, the petitioner has been disqualified and removed as a Ward Member of Hazirhat Gaon Panchayat. Page No.# 4/6 4. As per the facts projected, the petitioner had contested the panchayat election in the year 2025 for the aforesaid post of Ward Member of 3 No. 19/01 of 29 Hazirhat Gaon Panchayat under 2 No. Fekamari Anchalik Panchayat in the district of South Salmara Mankachar, Assam and was declared a winner. 5. The petitioner alleges that two notices were served upon her by the Assistant Commissioner-cum-District Child Marriage Prohibition Officer, South Salmara Mankachar on 28.07.2025 and 01.08.2025 and on both dates, the petitioner had attended and furnished all the documents. Without there being any further information about any proceeding, the impugned order has been passed by which, the petitioner has been held to be disqualified and consequently, removed as a Ward Member. 6. Shri KN Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel by referring to Rule 62(4)(b) and (c) of the Assam Panchayat (Constitution) Rules, 1995 (Rules) has submitted that a procedure has been laid down in the statute in case, there is any complaint of violation of the conditions required to be eligible for contesting a panchayat election and the said procedures have not been followed at all. It is submitted that a bare look at the impugned order would clearly show that there are materials from authorities which are contemplated under the statute and therefore, cannot be held to be relevant materials. He has also emphasized that no opportunity was given to the petitioner before taking the impugned decision which has adverse civil consequences on the petitioner. 7. Shri Handique, learned State Counsel has submitted that the impugned order has been passed by taking into consideration the relevant materials, including the reports from the District Child Marriage Prohibition Officer from which, it appears that the petitioner was involved in a child marriage as her husband was underaged at the time of marriage which was on 01.01.2013. Page No.# 5/6 8. Shri Dutta, learned Standing Counsel, P&RD and Ms. Kayastha, learned counsel appearing for the ASEC have endorsed the submissions of the learned State Counsel. 9. Shri HRA Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent no. 10 has submitted that the said respondent had complained before the District Child Marriage Prohibition Officer under the appropriate provision of law and the said complaint was brought to a logical conclusion by issuing notice which is also admitted by the petitioner. He has submitted that in view of such undisputed report, the order in question is not liable to be interfered with. 10. The rival submissions have been duly considered and the materials on record have been carefully examined. 11. Rule 62(4)(b) and (c) of the Rules lays down a procedure as per which, the Gaon Panchayat Secretary on receipt of information of any underage or minor marriage in respect of President, Vice President or Member of a Gaon Panchayat is to inform the concerned BDO, who in turn shall inform the concerned District Commissioner through the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad. The matter is then required to be examined by the District Commissioner and on establishment of the facts take appropriate action for removal. 12. In the instant case, it appears that the procedure prescribed has not been followed and the order is primarily based on a report of the District Child Marriage Prohibition Officer dated 29.08.2025. 13. In the considered opinion of this Court though such a report may have a bearing in the decision making process, it is mandatory on the part of the respondent Page No.# 6/6 authorities to follow the procedure established in law. What is also clearly appearing from the impugned order is that the same has been passed without giving due opportunity to make representation which would also require a personal hearing. The impugned order does not reflect that such an opportunity was granted to the petitioner and therefore, it clearly appears that the same has been passed without adhering to the principles of natural justice. 14. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order dated 10.09.2025 is unsustainable in law and accordingly, the same is set aside. It, however, made clear that there would be no restrictions on the part of the respondents to proceed with the matter, however, strictly in accordance with law and the statute holding the field. 15. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant