Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010010462026 2026:GAU-AS:3526 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/310/2026 JYOSNA KHATUN W/O- NUR HUSSAIN SK, VILL- SOULMARI, P.O- BORKANDA, P.S- BILASIPARA, DIST- DHUBRI, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND OTHRS TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM, PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GHY-06 2:THE COMMISSIONER PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT ASSAM JURIPAR PANJABARI GUWAHATI-37 ASSAM 3:THE ASSAM STATE ELECTION COMMISSION REP. BY THE SECRETARY PANJABARI GUWAHATI-37 4:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER DHUBRI ASSAM 5:THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER DHUBRI ZILLA PARISHAD Page No.# 2/7 DIST DHUBRI ASSAM PIN 783301 6:THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER ATHANI DEVELOPMENT BLOCK P.O AND DIST- DHUBRI ASSAM 7:JABEDA KHATUN W/O- RAFIUR ISLAM VILL- SOULMARI (GASHBARI) P.O- BORKANDA P.S- BILASIPARA DIST- DHUBRI ASSAM PIN-78338 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. Y ALI, MR. A M KHAN Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, MR. R DUBEY (R- 1, 2, 3, 5 & 6), MS. N BARMAN, GA (R- 4),SC, P AND R.D., SC, ASEC B E F O R E Hon’ble MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI Advocates for the petitioner : Shri AM Khan Advocates for the respondents: Shri J. Handique, GA, Assam Shri S. Dutta, SC-P&RD Ms. AB Kayastha, R.- ASEC Date of hearing and Judgment: 09.03.2026 Judgment & Order (oral) The extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court has been tried to be invoked by filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India pertaining to Page No.# 3/7 an order dated 19.12.2025 passed by the District Commissioner, Dhubri whereby the petitioner has been held to be disqualified from contesting for the post of Member of a Gaon Panchayat and removed. The relief prayed for in this writ petition is extracted hereinbelow: “It is therefore, prayed that your Lordship's would be pleased to admit the petition, issue a rule, call for the records and calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why a writ of Certiorari should not be issued to set aside and quashed the impugned order vide No.DDP-38/2025/P1 dated 19/12/2025 passed by the District Commissioner, Dhubri, Assam and also a writ of Mandamus should not be issued directing or commanding the respondents to allow the petitioner to act as Gaon Panchayat Member against 79/9 No. Soulmari constituency of 79 No. Jogirmahal Gaon Panchayat under Athani Anchalik Panchayat in the district of Dhubri, Assam. After cause or causes shown if any and upon hearing of the parties your Lordships would be pleased to make the rule absolute for the interest of justice and/or pass any other further appropriate order or orders as your Lordship may deem fit and proper as to grant adequate relief. -AND- Further, it is also prayed that till the disposal of the petition, Your Lordship's would be pleased to stay the impugned order vide No.DDP- 38/2025/P1 19/12/2025 passed by the dated District Commissioner, Dhubri, Assam for the interest of justice.” 2. As per the facts projected, the petitioner and the respondent no. 7 had contested the election for the post of Gaon Panchayat Member of 79/9 No. Page No.# 4/7 Soulmari constituency of 79 No. Jogirmahal Gaon Panchayat under Athani Anchalik Panchayat in the district of Dhubri, Assam. In the said election, the petitioner had defeated the respondent no. 7 by a margin of 32 votes and was duly elected and discharging her duties as a Ward Member. The respondent no. 7 had filed an election petition challenging the election of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner had violated the provisions of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 and the said proceeding is pending. However, vide the impugned order dated 19.12.2025, the petitioner has been held to be disqualified and order has been passed under Section 111(2) of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994 read with Rule 62(4)(b) and (c) of the Assam Panchayat (Constitutional) Rules 1995. It is this action which has been put to challenge in the instant writ petition. 3. I have heard Shri A. M. Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also heard Shri J. Handique, learned State Counsel; Shri S. Dutta, learned Standing Counsel, Panchayat and Rural Development Department and Ms. AB Kayastha, learned counsel representing the State Election Commission. The respondent no. 7, though served, has chosen not to appear and contest this writ petition. 4. Shri A. M. Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was duly elected by defeating the respondent no. 7 and her election is the subject matter of challenge in the election petition filed by the respondent no. 7. He has submitted that the petitioner was not at all aware of any proceeding before the District Commissioner who has passed the impugned order dated 19.12.2025 without giving any opportunity to her. It is also submitted that the findings are incorrect and erroneous on merits inasmuch as, the petitioner has valid documents to show that she was not involved with any Page No.# 5/7 child marriage. In this regard, the learned counsel has referred to the date of birth of the petitioner appearing in the Admit Card and also the Marriage Certificate. 5. Shri S. Dutta, learned Standing Counsel, Panchayat and Rural Development Department has submitted that there may not be any absolute bar for the District Commissioner to undertake a proceeding under Rule 62(4)(b) and (c) even if an election petition is pending. He has submitted that the District Commissioner has been vested with powers to look into the aspect of any candidate involved underage or minor marriage. He has however fairly submitted that reading of the impugned order will not reveal that a fair opportunity was granted to the petitioner to defend herself. He has also submitted that relevant factors do not seem to have been taken into consideration while passing the same. 6. Shri Handique, learned State Counsel, while endorsing the submissions of the learned Standing Counsel of the Department, has reiterated that the objective of the provision of law is only to ensure that a candidate contesting the elections for the Panchayat is not involved in any underage or minor marriage which is an offence under the particular provisions of law. 7. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and from the facts and circumstances emerging from the materials on record, it is not in dispute that in the elections held, the petitioner had defeated the respondent no. 7 in respect of which an election petition has been filed by the said respondent no. 7, which is pending. At the same time, what transpires from a reading of the impugned order dated 19.12.2025 passed by the District Commissioner is that the said respondent no. 7 had parallelly made a complaint before the District Commissioner alleging that the petitioner was involved in child marriage and Page No.# 6/7 had furnished false information in the affidavit submitted with the nomination papers. The impugned order also discloses that the matter was examined through an Inquiry Officer and certain facts have been stated. The impugned order however does not disclose that any manner of opportunity was granted to the petitioner to defend herself in the said proceeding. It is trite law that before taking any action which has got adverse civil consequences, the person to be affected by such orders are required to be given an opportunity of hearing as that is the basic requirement of law and is enshrined in the doctrine of Audi Alteram Pertem. 8. There is another aspect which is peculiar to the present case is with regard to the filing of an election petition by the said respondent no. 7. While the powers of the District Commissioner under Rule 62(4)(b) and (c) is not doubted, which can be exercised to take appropriate action against any candidate who is found to be underage or minor during the marriage, the parallel proceeding initiated at the instance of the said respondent no. 7 would be a factor which would play some role in the present case. When the statute has laid down a specific provision for redressal of grievance in the form of instituting an election petition under Section 127 of the Act, whether the same person who is the candidate can also file a complaint under Rule 62(4)(b) and (c) would be an issue which would require some deliberation. However, in the instant case, since the impugned order has been found to be faulty on other reasons including the aspect of violation of the principles of natural justice, the said question is left to be answered in an appropriate proceeding. Suffice it to mention that the aforesaid provision contained under Rule 62(4)(b) and (c) is to facilitate the District Commissioner to take appropriate action when an information is received through the Gaon Panchayat who is accordingly required to refer the Page No.# 7/7 matter to the BDO regarding underage or minor marriage whereafter appropriate actions can be taken by the District Commissioner. 9. In the conspectus of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned order dated 19.12.2025 is set aside. Consequently, the petitioner is to be reinstated back as a Member of the concerned Gaon Panchayat. 10. It is however made clear that the order of reinstatement is only with regard to the impugned order dated 19.12.2025 and will not have any influence on the adjudication of the election petition instituted by the respondent no. 7 against the petitioner which is to be decided strictly on merits and in accordance with law. 11. The writ petition accordingly stands allowed. 12. No order as to cost. JUDGE Comparing Assistant