Page No.# 1/10 GAHC010178482025 2026:GAU-AS:10891 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/4877/2025 HOSHNARA BEGUM W/O- HASINUR RAHMAN, R/O- VILL.- SAT BAINI CHANDAMARI, P.O. BALBALA, P.S. AGIA, DIST. GOALPARA, ASSAM, PIN- 783120. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 9 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006. 2:THE ADDL. CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-781006. 3:THE COMMISSIONER PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM PANJABARI GUWAHATI-781037. 4:THE SECRETARY ASSAM STATE ELECTION COMMISSION SIXMILE- PANJABARI ROAD GUWAHATI-781037. 5:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER GOALPARA P.O. AND P.S. GOALPARA ASSAM PIN- 783101. Page No.# 2/10 6:THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER GOALPARA ZILLA PARISHAD GOALPARA P.O. AND DIST. GOALPARA ASSAM PIN- 783101. 7:THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER PAIKAN DEVELOPMENT BLOCK P.O. KRISHNAI DIST. GOALPARA ASSAM PIN- 783126. 8:THE SECRETARY KALPANI CHANDAMARI GAON PANCHAYAT P.O. BALBALA DIST. GOALPARA ASSAM PIN- 783120. 9:THE SUPERINTENDENT M.N.R.R. CIVIL HOSPITAL GOALPARA P.O. AND DIST. GOALPARA ASSAM PIN- 783101. 10:SMT. ULEMA BEGUM W/O- SIRAJUL ALAM R/O- VILL.- CHANDAMARI STBAINI P.O. BALBALA P.S. AGIA DIST. GOALPARA ASSAM PIN- 783120 B E F O R E HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH Advocates for the Petitioner(s) : Mr. M M Zaman Advocates for the Respondent(s) : Mr. S. Dutta, Page No.# 3/10 Standing Counsel P & RD Mr. J Handique Govt. Advocate Ms. NB Kayastha For respondent No.4 Date on which judgment was reserved : NA Date of pronouncement of judgment : 05.08.2026 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. MM Zaman, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Also heard Mr. J Handique, the learned Government Advocate, who appears on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 and 5; Mr. S. Dutta, the learned Standing Counsel, P & RD, who appears on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2, 3, 6, 7 and 8 and Ms. NB Kayastha, the learned counsel who appears on behalf of respondent No.4. 2. The petitioner herein is aggrieved by the order dated 16.07.2025 passed by the District Commissioner, Goalpara whereby the petitioner was disqualified under Section 111(2)(f) of the Assam Panchayat Amendment Act, 2023 followed Page No.# 4/10 by Rules 62(4)(b) and (c) of the Assam Panchayat (Constitution) Amendment Rules, 2024, on the ground that as per the report of the Chief Executive Officer, Goalpara Zilla Parishad, wherein an enquiry was conducted as regards the under-age marriage of the petitioner thereby violating the eligibility norms in respect of a Gaon Panchayat Member. 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 Gaon Panchayat Member from Ward No.8, under Kalpani Chandamari Gaon Panchayat in the Gaolpara district. The petitioner was thereafter declared to be a winning candidate. 5. It is the case of the petitioner that while functioning as an elected member of the Kalpani Chandamari Gaon Panchayat in the Goalpara district, the petitioner came to learn that a complaint dated 27.05.2025 has been filed against her by the respondent No.10 herein alleging that the petitioner had contracted child marriage and that she had contested and won the Panchayat Election for the year 2025 by filing a false affidavit regarding attainment of legal marriage age. Consequently, a notice dated 05.06.2025 was issued to the petitioner as well as the respondent No.10 asking them to appear in person for Page No.# 5/10 a hearing on 06.06.2025. 6. It is the case of the petitioner that she duly appeared before the concerned authority and submitted the documents in support of her claim. However, vide the order dated 16.07.2025, the petitioner was removed from the post of Gaon Panchayat Member from Ward No.8, under Kalpani Chandamari Gaon Panchayat in the Gaolpara district by the District Commissioner Gaolpara. Subsequently, a corrigendum dated 19.07.2025 was also issued by the District Commissioner, Goalpara clarifying that the relevant sections under which the petitioner had been removed may be read as Section 111(2)(f) of the Assam Panchayat Amendment Act, 2023 followed by Rules 62(4)(b) and (c) of the Assam Panchayat (Constitution) Amendment Rules, 2024 instead of Sub- Rule-4(b) of Rule 62 of the Assam Panchayat (Constitution) Rules, 1995 as appearing in the impugned order dated 16.07.2025. 7. It is also the case of the petitioner that after the complaint was lodged, an enquiry was conducted on the allegation of under-age marriage of the petitioner, wherein the Enquiry Officer had stated that there is a bit of mismatch between the date of birth of Miss Muskan Sultana Rosul the daughter of the petitioner and as per the report of the Superintendent of Martyr Nidhanu Ram Rajbongshi Civil Hospital dated 05.07.2025, the petitioner gave birth to a female baby on 23.02.2015 at 5.50 A.M, whereby on the basis of calculating the date of birth of the petitioner to that of the date of birth of her daughter shows that the petitioner got married before attaining the legal age of marriage. Moreover, as admitted by the Gaon Panchayat Secretary in his written statement, the Page No.# 6/10 petitioner had indulged in child marriage. 8. It is the further case of the petitioner that the respondent No. 5 thereafter passed the impugned order, whereby the petitioner was disqualified and removed from the post of Gaon Panchayat Member from Ward No.8, under Kalpani Chandamari Gaon Panchayat in the Gaolpara district on the alleged ground of violation of the provisions of Section 111(2)(f) of the Assam Panchayat Amendment Act, 2023 followed by Rules 62(4)(b) and (c) of the Assam Panchayat (Constitution) Amendment Rules, 2024. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has challenged the said order before this Court by filing the present writ petition. 9. The learned Coordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 25.05.2026, issued notice in the instant case. 10. In the backdrop of the above facts, the question that arises is as to whether the judgment of this Court in the case of Aysha Khatun (supra) covers the issues involved in the present writ petition. 11. It is relevant to take note of that the petitioner was disqualified vide the impugned order dated 16.07.2025 on the ground that the petitioner had incurred disqualification in terms with 111(2)(f) of the Assam Panchayat Amendment Act, 2023 followed by Rules 62(4)(b) and (c) of the Assam Panchayat (Constitution) Amendment Rules, 2024. A further perusal of the Page No.# 7/10 impugned order reveals that an enquiry was conducted, during the course of which it was found that that there is a bit of mismatch between the date of birth of Miss Muskan Sultana Rosul the daughter of the petitioner. Moreover, as admitted by the Gaon Panchayat Secretary in his written statement, the petitioner had indulged in child marriage. 12. The materials on record would show that the impugned order is in violation to the Principles of Natural Justice inasmuch as the petitioner was not given adequate opportunity to rebut her case. 13. 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. 14. It is apparent from the records that the disqualification alleged existed on the date of submission of the nomination paper by the petitioner. 15. 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 hereinunder:- “48. The following propositions may be culled out from the Page No.# 8/10 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 as 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 outside the purview of the State Election Commission or even the electoral process conducted by the State Election Commission. Page No.# 9/10 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.” 16. Upon applying the aforementioned principles of law laid down by this Court in the case of Sri Ferdaus Rahman Mazumder (supra), 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)(f) of the Assam Panchayat Amendment Act, 2023 followed by Rules 62(4)(b) and (c) of the Assam Page No.# 10/10 Panchayat (Constitution) Amendment Rules, 2024 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. 17. Accordingly, the writ petition stand 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