Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010287042025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/564/2026 EUSUF AHMED S/O LATE ABDUL FATTHA, VILL- BAKARSHAL, P.O. JABAINPUR, P.S. AND DIST. SRIBHUMI, PIN- 788713 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 7 ORS. REPRESENTED BY TO THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6. 2:THE ASSAM STATE ELECTION COMMISSION TO BE REP. BY THE SECRETARY ASSAM STATE ELECTION COMMISSIONER PANJABARI GUWAHATI-37. 3:THE COMMISSIONER PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT JURIPAR PANJABARI GUWAHATI-37. 4:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER SRIBHUMI P.O. P.S. AND DIST. SRIBHUMI PIN- 788710. Page No.# 2/4 5:THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER KARIMGANJ ZILLA PARISHAD SRIBHUMI P.O. P.S. AND DIST. SRIBHUMI PIN-788710. 6:THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER BADARPUR CHAITANYANAGAR DEVELOPMENT BLOCK BADARPUR P.O.A ND P.S. BADARPUR DIST. SRIBHUMI PIN-788806. 7:THE SECRETARY BAKARSHAL NAIRGRAM GAON PANCHAYAT P.O. JABAINPUR P.S. AND DIST. SRIBHUMI PIN-788713 8:MD. NAZIM AHMED TAPADAR S/O LATE ABDUL KALAM TAPADAR VILL AND P.O. NAIRGRAM P.S. AND DIST. SRIBHUMI PIN-788708 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R A CHOUDHURY, MR. R A MAZUMDER Advocate for the Respondent : SC, P AND R.D., SC, ASEC,GA, ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI ORDER 25.02.2026 Heard Shri R. A. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri N. Das, learned State Counsel, Shri S. Dutta, learned Standing Counsel, P&RD and Shri R. Dubey, learned Standing Counsel, Assam State Election Page No.# 3/4 Commission. 2. As per the facts projected, the petitioner is a voter of Ward No. 4 of Bakarshal-Nairgram GP situated in the district of Sribhumi. It is contended that the respondent no. 8 who had contested the elections is not having requisite qualification. Accordingly, the petitioner had submitted a representation on 25.09.2025 alleging violation of Section 111 of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994. As no steps were taken to redress the grievance, the instant writ petition has been filed. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner being a voter of the concerned Ward, his representation ought to have been considered. 4. On the other hand, both Shri N. Das, the learned State counsel and Shri S. Dutta, learned Standing Counsel have raised a preliminary objection questioning the locus of the petitioner. 5. It is submitted that the petitioner was not a contesting candidate and is only a voter and therefore he cannot be deemed to be an aggrieved party. They have also placed before this Court an order dated 11.02.2026 passed by a Coordinate Bench in WP(C)/694/2026, in which this Court, by relying upon Section 129 of the Act had dismissed the petition in which a similar challenge was instituted. 6. The aforesaid judgment has been duly perused and this Court is in agreement with the same on principle. Further, though the aforesaid writ petition has been dismissed primarily in view of the provisions of law containing in Section 129 of the Act, this Court is also of the view that a procedure has been laid down in Section 111 of the Act read with Rule 62 of the Assam Page No.# 4/4 Panchayat (Constitution) Rules, 1995 for dealing with a situation of the present nature. Apparently, mere filing of a representation cannot be deemed to have fulfilled the aforesaid mandatory provisions. 7. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that the writ petition lacks merit and accordingly, the same is dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant