Page No.# 1/8 GAHC010189032026 2026:GAU-AS:13130 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/4822/2026 MUBARAK KHAN AND 3 ORS S/O- MOFIZ KHAN, VICE-PRESIDENT, 20 NO. RADHAKUCHI GAON PANCHAYAT, VIIL PO- RADHAKUCHI, P.S. DIST- BARPETA, ASSAM-781309. 2: SAFAR ALI WARD MEMBER WARD NO. 7 20 NO. RADHAKUCHI GAON PANCHAYAT S/O- KADER ALI VIILL PO- RADHAKUCHI PS DIST- BARPETA ASSAM-781309. 3: JAHIDUL ISLAM WARD MEMBER WARD NO. 4 KHAUAPARA 20 NO. RADHAKUCHI GAON PANCHAYAT S/O- FALU MIAH VIIL PO- KHARUAPARA PS DIST- BARPETA ASSAM-781309. 4: SAMIRAN BEGUM WARD MEMBER 20 NO. RADHAKUCHI GAON PANCHAYAT W/O- YAMIN ALI VIIL AND PO- KHARUAPARA PS AND DIST- BARPETA ASSAM-781309 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT Page No.# 2/8 AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006. 2:THE COMMISSIONER PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM DISPUR GUWAHATI-781006. 3:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER BARPETA DISTRICT BARPETA ASSAM-781301. 4:THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ZILLA PARISHAD BARPETA DISTRICT BARPETA ASSAM-781301 5:THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER PAKABETARBARI DEVELOPMENT BLOCK DISTRICT BARPETA ASSAM-781314 6:THE PRESIDENT NO. 20 RADHAKUCHI GAON PANCHAYAT PAKABETARBARI DEVELOPMENT BLOCK BARPETA ASSAM-781309 7:THE SECRETARY NO. 20 RADHAKUCHI GAON PANCHAYAT PAKABETARBARI DEVELOPMENT BLOCK BARPETA ASSAM-78130 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR S M ABDULLAH P, MS F HUSSAIN,MD S HOQUE,MR. J JAKARIA Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, MR S K CHHETRY (R6),MR. N UDDIN (R6),MR J ABEDIN (R6),SC, P AND R.D. Page No.# 3/8 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR ORDER 09.09. 2026 Heard Md. S. Hoque, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. J. Abedin, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.6, Mr. S Dutta, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5 and 7, and Mr. N. Das, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3. 2. The present writ petition had been initiated with a prayer for directing the respondent Nos. 3 and 5 not to accord approval and/or, in the alternative, to withhold and recall any approval already accorded to the 15th Finance Commission Scheme List dated 14.08.2026, forwarded by the respondent No.6, till the same is placed before and considered by the Gaon Sabha under Section 48B and approved as a part of the Panchayat budget under Section 27 of the Assam Panchayat Act and for a further writ, calling for the records relating to the Unilateral Scheme List dated 14.08.2026 and after perusal thereof, quash the same and for further directions to cause a special financial audit/enquiry into the disbursement of 60% of the sanctioned JJM funds against the three wards undertaken at Number 20, Radhakuchi, Gaon Panchayat, and to fix accountability and effect recovery if warranted in accordance with Sections 28 and 29, and as a consequential relief, declare the appointment of the Chairman of the Construction Committee to be illegal and void, and to direct for constitution of the Committee afresh through a resolution passed at a duly convened meeting of the Gaon Panchayat, with an independent and Page No.# 4/8 disinterested person as its Chairman, and also for directions to ensure equitable non-discriminatory and transparent allocation of 15th Finance Commission and other developmental schemes among all Wards of Number 20, Radhakuchi, Gaon. 3. It is the case of the petitioners that in the Executive Council meeting held on 09.06.2026, the Executive Committee of the 20 Number Radhakuchi, Gaon Panchayat had approved three schemes, namely, 1. Repairing of 286 No Kharuapara (Maikhuli) AWC with kitchen shed. 2. Repairing of 230 NO AWC with urinal shed at kharuaρara. 3. Construction of Paver Block Road St from Kasim Ali House to Bishu Miya House at village Radhakuchi Ph-II. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that none of the above three schemes have been approved. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that although the petitioner could not collect the list prepared on 14.08.2026 of the schemes which were ultimately approved, it is the assertion of the petitioners that none of the schemes under the said approved list relate to any of the Wards of the petitioners, who are elected Ward members. He has submitted that the petitioners have been subjected to discrimination and unequal treatment when the schemes have not been fairly distributed among the different Wards. He has accordingly prayed that the entire scheme list be set aside and the respondents be directed to prepare fresh schemes with the approval of the Gaon Sabha. Page No.# 5/8 5. The learned counsel appearing for the Panchayat and Rural Development has placed before this Court the instructions issued to him by the Block Development Officer on 08.09.2026, whereby the minutes of the District Planning Committee meeting held on 18th August 2026 have also been annexed. 6. The learned Standing Counsel has drawn my attention to the GP-level works under 15th FC, (untied), 2025 (second instalment), where at Sl. No. 72, 73 and 74, three projects for 20 no. Radhakuchi Gaon Panchayat have been approved. He submits that Project No.74 relates to the repair of 1146 no. Kharwapara LPS, phase two (door, window, floor, GI sheet with ceiling and colour) has been approved. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the State respondents that this scheme relates to ward number 9, of which the petitioner No.1 is an elected member. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has disputed this by saying that the project has been given to be monitored by the ward member of ward number 8, Ms. Makoni Begum, and not to be monitored by the concerned authority. 8. This Court observes that in the event the aforesaid scheme falls within the ward area of which the petitioner has been elected as a ward member, as per prevalent practice, the concerned ward member is required to be the monitoring authority and not the ward member of some other ward. The respondents should keep the same in mind while having the work executed at Sl. No.74 of the approved list. Page No.# 6/8 9. Mr. J. Abedin, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent No.6, has submitted that a meeting of the entire Gaon Sabha was held on 05.06.2026; in the said meeting the petitioner had participated as the vice-president and 11 schemes had been approved by the entire Gaon Sabha. Out of that, at least two of the schemes, namely the scheme at Sl. No.6, that is, repairing of 1146 number Kwarapara LP School and the scheme at Sl. No.10, namely construction of boundary wall at Kharwapara sub-centre of village Kharwapara (Ward No.9), were approved by the Gaon Sabha in the area from which the petitioner No.1 had been elected. 10. He has accordingly submitted that even on a priority basis for utilisation of the second instalment of 15th FC, one of the schemes, as already pointed out by the learned counsel for the State respondents, belongs to the area where the petitioner has been elected. 11. He has accordingly submitted that these welfare schemes are to be taken up for the entire Gaon by the Gaon Sabha as a whole and it cannot be expected that each of the ward members would be allotted a particular scheme for development since the projects depend upon the economic viability of the assistance received under the 15th FC. He has submitted that the manner in which the schemes are distributed or approved at Gaon Sabha are matters of consideration by the villagers and the Writ Court would not be equipped to see Page No.# 7/8 as to which of the schemes would benefit which of the villages or the wards. 12. Accordingly, he has submitted that in the event the petitioner is unable to show any procedural lapse in the adoption of the welfare schemes or the approval of the schemes, the Writ Court would be reluctant to interfere in the decisions taken. 13. I have considered the materials made available on record, and I have also considered the submissions made. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the scheme at Sl. No. 74 had been allotted to be monitored by some other ward member, and this Court has already observed that in the event the scheme falls within the ward of the petitioner, he shall be, as is the usual practice, in the absence of any impediment in law or fact, allowed to monitor the said scheme. We find force in the argument of the learned counsel for the respondents that since no procedural lapse has been pointed out before this Court, this Court, in exercise of the jurisdiction conferred by Article 226 of the Constitution of India, would not be in a position to grant the reliefs sought for in the writ petition. 14. However, it is noticed that the petitioner had made several applications before the concerned authorities, ventilating his grievances. 15. The closure of this writ petition could not in any manner impede the Page No.# 8/8 respondent authorities from disposing of the representation filed by the petitioner. In fact, it is the duty of the respondent authorities to take into consideration grievances raised by the petitioner and answer them accordingly, and this Court expects the respondent authorities to dispose of the representation filed by the petitioner after giving him such hearing, as may be necessary. 16. Accordingly, the writ petition is closed. 17. The closure of this writ petition will also not impede the petitioner from raising his grievances before appropriate forum(s), if available. JUDGE Comparing Assistant