Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010144512026 2026:GAU-AS:10611 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Review.Pet./112/2026 DILARA BEGUM LASKAR WIFE OF MUKTAR HUSSAIN LASKAR, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- DAKSHIN MOHANPUR PART-X, P.O.-DAKSHIN MOHANPUR, P.S.- SONAI, DISTRICT- CACHAR, ASSAM, PIN- 788119 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI, PIN-781006 2:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER CACHAR P.O. AND P.S.- SILCHAR DISTRICT- CACHAR ASSAM PIN- 788001 3:THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER CACHAR ZILLA PARISHAD P.O. AND P.S.- SILCHAR DISTRICT- CACHAR ASSAM PIN- 788001 4:THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER SONAI DEVELOPMENT BLOCK P.O. AND P.S. -SONAI DISTRICT- CACHAR ASSAM PIN- 788119 5:THE SECRETARY 128 NO SWADHIN BAZAR GAON PANCHAYAT Page No.# 2/4 P.O- DAKSHIN MOHANPUR P.S.- SONAI DISTRICT- CACHAR ASSAM PIN- 78811 For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. M. K. Hussain, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Ms. M. Barman, Jr. GA, Assam : Mr. S. Dutta, SC, P&RD BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH ORDER Date : 31.07.2026 This is an application for review of the order dated 13.02.2026 passed in WP(C) No.738/2026 whereby this Court had set aside the Speaking Order dated 10.12.2025 on the ground that the Speaking Order dated 10.12.2025 was not passed by giving the Petitioner an opportunity of hearing and directed the District Commissioner, Cachar to pass a Speaking Order as permissible under the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994 (for short ‘the Act of 1994’) as well as the Rules framed thereinunder by giving an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner. 2. The Petitioner herein has sought for review of the said order dated 13.02.2026 passed in WP(C) No.738/2026 on the ground that subsequent to the said order, this Court in the judgment Page No.# 3/4 rendered in the case of Ayesha Khatun Vs. State of Assam & 5 Others reported in 2026 (3) GLT 102 held that in respect to disqualification which stood prior to submission of the nomination paper, the District Commissioner would have no jurisdiction in terms with Section 111(2) of the Act of 1994 to disqualify an elected Panchayat Member. 3. This Court duly takes note of the settled principles of law that a subsequent decision would not render the order passed earlier, an error apparent on the face of the record to exercise the review jurisdiction. Under such circumstances, it is the opinion of this Court that this is not a fit case for exercising the review jurisdiction. 4. Be that as it may, this Court for the sake of clarity observes that in the order dated 13.02.2026 passed in WP(C) No.738/2026, this Court had categorically directed the District Commissioner, Cachar to pass a Speaking Order as permissible under the Act of 1994 as well as the Rules framed therein under. Under such circumstances, the interpretation so given to Section 111 of the Act of 1994 read with Rule 62 of the Assam Panchayat (Constitution) Rules, 1995 (for short ‘the Rules of 1995’) in the case of Ayesha Khatun (supra) has to be duly taken note of by the District Commissioner, Cachar while passing the Speaking Order. Page No.# 4/4 5. At the cost of repetition, it is pertinent to observe that in the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Ayesha Khatun (supra), this Court had categorically held that the District Commissioner does not have the jurisdiction to exercise the powers under Section 111(2) of the Act of 1994 read with Rule 62 of the Rules of 1995 in respect to a pre-existing disqualification prior to the submission of the nomination paper. This aspect the District Commissioner, Cachar shall duly take note of while passing the Speaking Order. JUDGE Comparing Assistant