The main legal point established in the judgment is the harmonious interpretation of statutory provisions and constitutional mandates to determine the election process and voting rights for Panchayat members.

A.H. Saikia, J.

1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

2. Basically in the instant writ petition, the petitioner has sought for the quashment of the resolution of the meeting of the Badarpur Anchalik Panchayat (for short, 'the Panchayat') for election of the President and Vice-President held on 15.11.2006 Annexure-8 to the writ petition) and also for a direction to the respondent No. 2, the State Election Commission, Assam, Guwahati and respondent No. 3, the Deputy Commissioner, Karimganj to hold the election of the President and Vice-President of the Panchayat in question especially in accordance with law in terms of the order passed by the Hon'ble Court on 18.01.2006 in W.P.(C) No. 9005/05 mainly on two counts, namely (1) that no notice convening the meeting for election of President and Vice-President of the Panchayat as required under Section 37(1) and (2) of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994 (for short, 'the Act') read with Rules 48 and 53 of the Assam Panchayat (Constitution) Rules, 1995 (for short, 'the Rules') was issued to the members constituting the Panchayat under Section 32(1) of the Act and (2) that the meeting which adopted the impugned resolution lacked quorum as required under Rule 48(3) of the Rules.

3. The case of the petitioner is that he, being a member of the Panchayat, was aggrieved by the impugned resolution dated 15.11.2006 by which the respondent Nos. 7 and 8 were illegally elected as the President and Vice-President respectively of the Panchayat because at the time of holding of the meeting there was only six elected members present out of eleven elected members of the Panchayat that being constituted with 12 members from the various Gram Panchayat out of which one member who was earlier elected as Vice-President meanwhile expired and virtually one third of the total members as under Section 32(1) of the Act, as required under Rule 48(3) were not present to constitute quorum, being essential, at the time of adoption of the impugned resolution. It is contended that the Panchayat was, in terms of Sub-section (1) of Section 32 of the Act, initially constituted with 26 members in total i.e., there being 12 Gaon Panchayat under the Panchayat, (i) 12 elected members from the respective Gaon Panchayats, (ii) 12 ex-officio Presidents of the Gaon Panchayat (iii) 1 Member of Parliament and 1 Member of Legislative Assembly representing the constituency which comprises the Panchayat. Due to death one member who was elected as Vice-President of the Panchayat, presently the Panchayat was constituted with 25 members and as per Rule 48(3), if one third of the total members i.e., in the instant case 8 members were not present, the meeting adopting the impugned resolution ought to have been adjourned by the Deputy Commissioner fixing another date.

4. On the other hand, in support of the election of the respondent Nos. 7 and 8, it is submitted that the election of those President and Vice-President were held within time frame and in total consonance with of the provision of law prescribed under the Act as well as the Rules inasmuch as in terms of Sections 37(1) and (2) read with Rules 48(1) and (3) of the Rules there were one third of the elected members present out of eleven existing members out of total 12 members, as one of them, being elected as Vice-President, expired and by those elected members only the President and Vice-President i.e., respondent Nos. 7 and 8 respectively were elected and as such the question of holding the meeting without quorum does not arise.

5. The stand taken on behalf of those respondents is that due notices to all the members comprising the Panchayat including the petitioner were duly sent notifying the date of convening the scheduled meeting for such election and there was, therefore, no illegality or irregularity occurred in holding the meeting and thereby electing the respondents Nos. 7 and 8 as President and Vice-President of the Panchayat respectively.

6. In the backdrop of th