Page No.# 1/10 GAHC010241882025 2026:GAU-AS:10480 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/6428/2025 CHAYNA BEGOM BARBHUIYA AND 3 ORS C/O. JIAUR RAHMAN BARBHUIYA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BURIBALI PART-II, P.O. BURIBAIL, DIST. CACHAR, ASSAM, PIN- 788025. 2: JILI BEGUM BARBHUIYA C/O- KAMRUL ISLAM BARBHUIYA R/O- VILL.- UJANGRAM P.O. NIZJOYNAGAR DIST. CACHAR ASSAM PIN- 788025. 3: SABINA BEGUM BARBHUIYA C/O- ANCHAR HUSSAIN BARBHUIYA R/O- VILL.- GANIGRAM PART-IV P.O. GANIGRAM PART-II DIST. CACHAR ASSAM PIN- 788025. 4: WAHIDA BEGUM BARBHUIYA W/O- ASFAKUL HAQUE BARBHUIYA R/O- VILL.- BURIBAIL PART-I P.O. BURIBAIL P.S. BORKHOLA DIST. CACHAR ASSAM PIN- 788025 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 12 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, Page No.# 2/10 GUWAHATI-6. 2:THE COMMISSIONER PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT ASSAM JURIPAR PANJABARI GUWAHATI-37. 3:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER CACHAR DIST. CACHAR ASSAM PPIN- 788001. 4:THE AUTHORISED OFFICER O/O- DISTRICT COMMISSIONER CACHAR 1ST MEETING FOR CONSTITUTION OF 93 NO. BURIBAIL GAON PANCHAYAT UNDER BARKHOLA DEV. BLOCK. 5:THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACHAR ZILA PARISHAD SILCHAR DIST. CACHAR ASSAM PIN- 788001. 6:THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER BORKHOLA DEVELOPMENT BLOCK BORKHOLA PIN- 788110. 7:PARMITA DEV O/O- DISTRICT COMMISSIONER CACHAR DIST. CACHAR ASSAM PIN- 788001. 8:ANNAPURNA PAUL W/O- JOMAK PAUL VILL.- BURIBALI PART-I P.O. GONIRGRAM DIST. CACHAR ASSAM PIN- 788025. Page No.# 3/10 9:HAFIZUR RAHMAN LASKAR S/O- MUZIBUR RAHMAN LASKAR VILL.- UJANGRAM P.O. ARUNACHAL DIST. CACHAR ASSAM PIN-788025. 10:ANAWARA BEGUM BARBHUIYA W/O- ZAMIL AHMED CHOUDHURY VILL.- GONIRGRAM PART-IV P.O. GONIRGRAM DIST. CACHAR. ASSAM PIN- 788025. 11:SIRAJ UDDIN LASKAR S/O- LATE AJMOT ALI LASKAR VILL.- BURIBAIL PART-II P.O. BURIBAIL DIST. CACHAR ASSAM PIN- 788025. 12:ROUNAK ARA BARBHUIYA W/O- ABDUL ODUD LASKAR VILL.- CHANDPUR PART-V P.O. CHANDPUR DIST. CACHAR ASSAM PIN- 788110. 13:ASMA BEGUM MAZUMDER W/O- KUTUB UDDIN MAZUMDER VILL.- UJANGRAM P.O. NIZ JOYNAGAR DIST. CACHAR ASSAM PIN- 788025 Page No.# 4/10 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. S.B. Laskar, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. H. Sarma, Addl. Sr. Govt. Advocate Mr. S. Dutta, Standing Counsel Mr. S.P. Choudhury, Advocate · Date on which Judgment was reserved : N/A · Date of Pronouncement of Judgment : 28.07.2026 · Whether the pronouncement is of the Operative Part of the Judgment : No · Whether the full Judgment has been Pronounced : Yes JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL) Heard Mr. S.B. Laskar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. Mr. S. Dutta, the learned Standing Counsel appears on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1, 2, 5 and 6; Mr. H. Sarma, the learned Additional Senior Government Advocate appears on behalf of the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and Mr. S.P. Choudhury, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent Nos. 7 to 13. 2. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the meeting of the newly elected members of 93 No. Buribail Gaon Panchayat under Borkhola Anchalik Panchayat held on 07.07.2025, Page No.# 5/10 on the sole ground that the said meeting was convened and conducted in contravention of Rule 46 of the Assam Panchayat (Constitution) Rules, 1995 (for short, "the Rules of 1995"). 3. Taking into account the grievance of the petitioners, and as the case of the petitioners primarily rests on the compliance with Rule 46 of the Rules of 1995, more particularly Sub-Rules (1), (2) and (3) thereof, the said provisions are reproduced hereinbelow: “(1) The Deputy Commissioner or the Sub-Divisional Officer as the case may be, shall call the first meeting of a Gaon Panchayat under [clause (b) of sub- section (1) of Section 6] of the Act, by fixing a date and by causing a written notice specifying the date, time and place of the meeting, to be served on each elected member of the Gaon Panchayat concerned at least seven days before the date so fixed. Such meeting shall be preside over by an Officer authorised by the Deputy Commissioner or the Sub-Divisional Officer as the case may be and such Officer shall not be entitled to vote. (2) The Officer authorised in sub-rule (1) shall administer the oath of affirmation to the [Member] of the Gaon Panchayat as under Section 134 of the Act. (3) If one third or more of the total number of members called to the meeting under sub-rule (1) are not present within an hour of the time fixed for the meeting, the Deputy Commissioner or the Sub-Divisional Officer as the case may be, or the Officer empowered in this behalf, shall adjourn the meeting pending fixation of another date by the Deputy Commissioner or the Sub- Divisional Officer as the case may be, not later than fifteen days of such Page No.# 6/10 meeting.” 4. From a perusal of the above quoted Sub-Rules of Rule 46 of the Rules of 1995, it would show that the Deputy Commissioner or the Sub-Divisional Officer as the case may be, shall call the first meeting of the Gaon Panchayat under Clause (b) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 6 of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994, by fixing a date and causing a written notice specifying the date, time, place of the meeting to be served on each elected member of the Gaon Panchayat concerned at least 7 days before the date so fixed. Such meeting is also required to be presided over by an officer authorized by the Deputy Commissioner or the Sub-Divisional Officer as the case may be, and such Officer shall not be entitled to vote. In terms with Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 46 of the Rules of 1995, if one-third or more of the total number of members called to the meeting under Sub-Rule (1) are not present within an hour of the time fixed for the meeting, the Deputy Commissioner or the Sub- Divisional Officer as the case may be, or the officer empowered in this behalf, shall adjourn the meeting pending fixation of another date by the Deputy Commissioner or the Sub-Divisional Officer as the case may be, not later than 15 days of such meeting. 5. In the backdrop of the above, if this Court peruses the Minutes of the Meeting, more particularly the translated version Page No.# 7/10 certified by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, it would show that a meeting was convened at 1:00 PM on 07.07.2025. On account of the absence of the Presiding Officer, the meeting was cancelled. Thereupon, pursuant to the direction of the Chief Executive Officer of the Zilla Parishad, one Smt. Parmita Dev was instructed to reconvene the meeting on the same date at 2:00 PM. The Minutes further show that at 2:00 PM on the same day, 6 out of the 10 members were present. It is the case of the petitioners that the remaining 4 members, who are the petitioners herein, did not attend the meeting on account of want of notice that the meeting would be reconvened at 2:00 PM on 07.07.2025. The meeting thereafter proceeded with the 6 members present, and certain resolutions were adopted. 6. Mr. S.B. Laskar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the petitioners were not aware about the reconvening of the meeting on 07.07.2025 itself, inasmuch as the said meeting could only be reconvened by the District Commissioner or the Sub-Divisional Officer, as the case may be, by fixing another date, which shall not be later than 15 days from the date on which the meeting was fixed. The learned counsel, therefore, submitted that the meeting held on 07.07.2025 at 2:00 PM was contrary to Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 46 of the Rules of 1995. Page No.# 8/10 7. This Court, upon perusal of the materials on record, is also of the opinion that the meeting reconvened at 2:00 PM on 07.07.2025, that too, at the direction of the Chief Executive Officer of the Zilla Parishad, was not in consonance with Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 46 of the Rules of 1995. Accordingly, the said meeting dated 07.07.2025, being contrary to Rule 46(3) of the Rules of 1995, cannot be allowed to be sustained. 8. This Court also finds it pertinent to take note of the submissions made by Mr. S. Dutta, the learned Standing Counsel for the P&RD Department as well as Mr. S.P. Choudhury, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the private respondents, who submitted that on account of the petitioners, the meetings could not be held on 27.06.2025 and 02.07.2025. The learned counsels, therefore, submitted that specific directions may be issued so that on the next date, the petitioners cannot raise any grievance that they had no notice about the said meeting. 9. Mr. H. Sarma, the learned Additional Senior Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the District Commissioner, Cachar submitted that this Court may fix a date so that the petitioners, at a later stage, cannot again raise the issue that they had no notice. Page No.# 9/10 10. This Court also takes note of that the elections were held as far back as in the year 2025, and till date, the first meeting of the Gaon Panchayat in question has not been held on account of the inadequacy of the quorum and as such, there is a requirement of passing certain directions in that regard. 11. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands disposed of with the following observations and directions: (i) The impugned meeting held on 07.07.2025, being in violation of Rule 46 of the Rules of 1995 is set aside and quashed. (ii) Taking into account that all the members of the Gaon Panchayat in question are represented before this Court and that on behalf of the District Commissioner, Cachar, a submission has been made to the effect that a date and time may be fixed for the meeting, this Court fixes the first meeting of the 93 No. Buribail Gaon Panchayat on 11.08.2026 at 11:00 AM at the office of the Borkhola Anchalik Panchayat. (iii) The petitioners as well as the private respondents are put to notice about the date, time and place where the meeting would be held. Page No.# 10/10 (iv) This Court further directs the respondent No. 3 to nominate an officer authorized to be present in the said meeting to conduct the business of the meeting. (v) All other reliefs sought for in the present writ petition stand rejected. (vi) There shall be no order as to costs. JUDGE Comparing Assistant Digitally signed by Satyam Sharma Date: 2026.07.29 23:20:09 +05'30'