Page No.# 1/8 GAHC010202572025 2026:GAU-AS:10282 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/5331/2025 JOBEDA KHATUN W/O- LATE ABDUR RAHIM, D/O- JOBED ALI, VILL.- MORIOM NAGAR, P.O. BALADMARI, P.S. AND DIST. GOALPARA, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-06. 2:THE ASSAM STATE ELECTION COMMISSION REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DISPUR GUWAHATI-06. 3:THE COMMISSIONER PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PANJABARI JURIPAR GUWAHATI-37. 4:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER GOALPARA ASSAM PIN- 783101. 5:THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER GOALPARA ZILLA PARISHAD GOALPARA ASSAM PIN- 783101. Page No.# 2/8 6:THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER PAIKAN DEVELOPMENT BLOCK PAIKAN GOALPARA ASSAM PIN- 783101. 7:THE SECRETARY 45 NO. BHALUKDUBI GAON PANCHAYAT P.O. BALADMARI P.S. AND DIST. GOALPARA ASSAM PIN- 782127 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH Advocate for the petitioner (s) : Mr. S. S. Ahmed, Advocate Advocate for the respondent (s): Mr. Mr. S. Dutta, SC, P&RD Date on which judgment is reserved : NA Date of pronouncement of judgment : 27.07.2026 Whether the pronouncement is of the Operative part of the judgment? : Yes Whether the full judgment has been Pronounced? : No. JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL) Heard Mr. S. S. Ahmed, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner. Mr. N. Das, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the State Respondents and Mr. S. Dutta, the learned Page No.# 3/8 counsel appears on behalf of the Respondents in the P&RD Department. 2. The Petitioner herein is aggrieved by the order dated 16.07.2025 passed by the District Commissioner, Goalpara whereby the Petitioner was removed under Rule 62(4)(b) of the Assam Panchayat (Constitution) Amendment Rules, 2024 (for short, ‘the Rules of 2024’) on the ground that as per the report of Smti. Nikha Moni Kalita, ACS, Executive Magistrate, Goalpara, the Petitioner was a minor on the date of her marriage and hence the marriage was in violation to the provisions of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act (PCMA), 2006. 3. It has been submitted at the Bar that the issue involved in the instant writ petition is squarely covered by the judgment and order dated 23.02.2026 passed in the case of Aysha Khatun Vs. State of Assam & 5 Others, reported in 2026 (3) GLT 102. 4. The brief facts leading to the filing of the instant case, as it appears from the materials on record are that the Petitioner contested for the post of Ward Member from Ward No.6 under 45 No. Bhalukdubi Gaon Panchayat. In the election held on 07.05.2025, the Petitioner was declared to be a winning candidate, having secured 234 votes. 5. It is the case of the Petitioner that while functioning as an Page No.# 4/8 elected member of the Ward No.6 under 45 No. Bhalukdubi Gaon Panchayat, one Smti. Momtaz Begum lodged a complaint before the Respondent No. 4 alleging that the Petitioner had violated the prescribed legal age of marriage under the provisions of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, and had submitted a false affidavit along with her nomination paper for the Panchayat Election, 2025. Pursuant to the said complaint, the Respondent No. 4 thereafter passed the impugned order dated 16.07.2025 whereby the Petitioner was removed from the post of Ward Member of the Ward No.6 under 45 No. Bhalukdibi Gaon Panchayat on the alleged ground of violation of the provisions of Rule 62(4) (b) of the Rules of 2024. Being aggrieved, the Petitioner has challenged the said order before this Court by filing the present writ petition. 6. In the backdrop of the above facts, the question that arises is whether the judgment of this Court in the case of Aysha Khatun (supra) covers the issues involved in the present writ petition. 7. It is relevant to take note of that the Petitioner was removed vide the impugned order dated 16.07.2025 on the ground that the Petitioner had incurred disqualification in terms with Rule 62(4)(b) of the Rules of 2024. A further perusal of the impugned order reveals that an inquiry was conducted, during the course of which it was found that the Petitioner was born on 02.05.1993 Page No.# 5/8 and that, at the time of the birth of her first child, she was below the age of 18 years. 8. The materials on record would show that the impugned order is in violation to the Principles of Natural Justice inasmuch as on 16.07.2025, Smti. Nikha Moni Kalita, ACS, Executive Magistrate, Goalpara submitted the report and the impugned order was passed. 9. Be that as it may, the question arises as to whether the respondent No.4 at all had the jurisdiction to pass the impugned order dated 16.07.2025. 10. It is apparent from the records that the disqualification alleged existed on the date of submission of the nomination paper by the Petitioner. 11. This Court, in this regard, finds it relevant to take note of another judgment passed by this Court on 13.03.2026 in the case of Sri Ferdaus Rahman Mazumder Vs State of Assam & 6 Others, reported in 2026:GAU-AS:3725 wherein this Court had deduced the ratio laid down in the case of Aysha Khatun (supra) in conjunction with the relevant provisions of the Constitution of India, the Act of 1994 and the Rules of 1995. Paragraph No.48 of the said judgment being relevant is reproduced herein under:- “48. The following propositions may be culled out from the Page No.# 6/8 observations made by this Court in the case of Aysha Khatun (supra) read with the provisions of the Constitution, Act of 1994 and Rules of 1995. (A) Article 243F of the Constitution stipulates when a candidate would be disqualified for being chosen as and for being a member of the Panchayat. (B) Section 111 of Act of 1994 however uses the expressions "elected or co-opted" and "and remain". There appears to be a reason for doing so in as much as Section 111 of the Act of 1994 not only speaks of being a Member of the Panchayat, but also to be elected or co-opted and remain as President or Vice President of Zilla Parishad, Anchalik Panchayat and Gaon Panchayat. (C) The proposition so laid down in Aysha Khatun (supra) has to be understood in the context of an election and to remain as Member of the Panchayat that would be election and to remain as Member of Zilla Parishad, Anchalik Panchayat and Gaon Panchayat. This is so because to be chosen as a Member of the Panchayat, the person has to be elected in an election conducted by the State Election Commission constituted in terms with Article 243K of the Constitution read with Section 114 of the Act of 1994. The bar contained in Article 243-O of the Constitution read with Section 129 of the Act of 1994 is only in respect to elections conducted by the State Election Commission. However, election to the posts of President and Vice President of the Gaon Panchayat, Anchalik Panchayat as well Zilla Parishad are Page No.# 7/8 outside the purview of the State Election Commission or even the electoral process conducted by the State Election Commission. The posts of President and Vice President of the Gaon Panchayat, Anchalik Panchayat as well as Zilla Parishad are held under the control and supervision of the District Commissioner or any officer delegated by the District Commissioner as would be apparent from a perusal of Section 6, 37 and 70 of the Act of 1994 read with Rules 46, 48 and 50 of the Rules of 1995. (D) In the case of Aysha Khatun (supra), this Court categorically held that in respect of a disqualification which existed at the time of submission of the nomination paper, the said would come within the purview of improper acceptance of the nomination paper. This Court further held that an improper acceptance of the nomination paper whereby the election of the returned candidate have been materially effected being a ground for declaration of the election to be void, the improper acceptance of the nomination paper, being a part of the election process, the same has to be challenged by way of an election petition by presenting the same before the Election Tribunal within the period of 60 days from the date of declaration of the results of the election. This Court also held that the District Commissioner had no jurisdiction and competence to decide the question of disqualification for being a Member of Panchayat if such disqualification existed at the time of submission of the nomination.” 12. Upon applying the aforementioned principles of law laid down by this Court in the case of Sri Ferdaus Rahman Mazumder (supra), Page No.# 8/8 it is the opinion of this Court that as the impugned order dated 16.07.2025 related to a disqualification pertaining to Section 111(2) of the Act of 1994 read with Rule 62(4)(b) and (c) of the Rules of 1995 and the said disqualification was existing at the time of filing of the nomination paper by the Petitioner, the District Commissioner, Goalpara, therefore, had no jurisdiction to decide the disqualification of the Petitioner. 13. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of with the following observations and directions: (i) The impugned order dated 16.07.2025 as well as all consequential action(s) taken on the basis of the impugned order dated 16.07.2025 are set aside and quashed. (ii) No costs. JUDGE Comparing Assistant Pradip Kumar Kalita Digitally signed by Pradip Kumar Kalita Date: 2026.07.29 13:16:13 +05'30'