Back
2025 Supreme(Gau) 1500
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, J.
Supa Nath, W/o Dipankar Nath – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Assam And Others – Respondent
WP(C) 5338 of 2025
Decided on : 15-09-2025
For the Petitioner:Shri H. A. Laskar, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Shri K. Konwar, Addl. AG, Assam, Shri R. Dubey, SC, State Election Commission.
Candidates must adhere to statutory procedures for challenging election results, with strict timelines set for filing election petitions under the Assam Panchayat Act.
Headnote:(A) Assam Panchayat Act, 1994 - Sections 111 and 129(b) - Election contest - Disqualification of elected candidate - Appellant challenged the election of Ward Member based on alleged disqualifications due to forged documents. Court ruled that the remedy to challenge the election lies solely through an Election Petition under Section 129(b), which was not filed within the stipulated timeframe. (Paras 3, 9, 11)
(B) Judicial review - Writ jurisdiction - The essence of judicial review, while grounded in equitable discretion, necessitates adherence to statutory remedies when they are prescribed. The failure to pursue such remedies within their deadlines undermines the likelihood of court intervention. (Paras 12, 13)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was a candidate in an election for the Ward Member position and alleged the winning candidate submitted forged qualifications and false affidavits to qualify. Complaints submitted to authorities were unaddressed.
Findings of Court:
The court determined the writ petition was not maintainable due to the absence of an election petition filed within the statutory period.
Issues: Whether disqualifications justified a challenge to the election outside the stipulations of the Assam Panchayat Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that statutory provisions dictate the manner of election challenge, asserting that any deviation from prescribed processes negates the legitimacy of alternative actions.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. disqualification based on forged documents. (Para 2) |
| 2. arguments on qualifications and maintainability of the application. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. procedural requirements for election petitions. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. strict adherence to procedural laws is mandatory. (Para 12 , 13) |
| 5. dismissal of the writ petition for non-maintainability. (Para 14) |
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, J.
Heard Shri H. A. Laskar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri K. Konwar, learned Addl. AG for the State respondents and Shri R. Dubey, learned Standing Counsel, State Election Commission.
2. As per the facts projected, the petitioner was a contesting candidate in the election for the post of Ward Member of Ward No. 1 of Katirail Gaon Panchayat under the 3/11 Katigorah Zilla Parishad which was held in May, 2025. However, she has lost the elections to the respondent no. 5. It is the case of the petitioner that the selected candidate – respondent no. 5 was disqualified as forged documents were submitted regarding her educational qualification. It is also her case that a false affidavit has been sworn regarding the marriage. The petitioner has filed representation / complaint before the Deputy Commissioner, Cachar on 08.08.2025 which has not been acted upon.
3. Shri Laskar, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the qualifications of the candidates are provided in Section 111 of the ASSAM PANCHAYAT ACT , 1994, as per which there is a particular requirement so far as educational qualification is concerned and further that the candidate should not be involved in a child marriage. He has submitted that on both these aspects, the respondent no. 5 was unqualified and to cover up the same, forged documents and false affidavit have been submitted which have been overlooked by the authorities. He accordingly submits that a direction be issued to consider and dispose of the complaint/ representation.
4. Per contra, Shri Konwar, the learned Addl. AG has submitted that the present application is not maintainable in view of Section 129 (b) of the Act of 1994. He has submitted that elections to any Panchayat can be called in question only by an Election Petition which is to be presented within 60 days from the date of declaration of the results. He has submitted that admittedly the results were declared in May, 2025 and within the prescribed period of time, no such Election Petition has been said to be instituted by the petitioner.
5. Shri Dubey, the learned Standing Counsel, State Election Commission, while supporting and endorsing the submissions made on behalf of the Department, has submitted that the Act itself had provided for remedy which was not availed of by the petitioner diligently and therefore no indulgence can be given to the petitioner by this Court which is a Court of Equity.
6. Shri Laskar, learned counsel for the petitioner in his rejoinder has drawn the attention of this Court to Section 111 (3) (ii) of the Act and has contended that the District Commissioner would have the power to decide such issue. The said averment has however been refuted by the learned Addl. AG by submitting that such powers under the aforesaid provision is only to decide disqualification on the ground of defection which is not the fact of the instant case.
7. The rival submissions have been duly considered and the materials placed before this Court have been carefully perused.
8. The undisputed facts is that the petitioner had contested the election from the aforesaid Ward mentioned and had lost the same. It is the private respondent no. 5, who was elected as a Ward Member. Section 11 of the Act of 1994 is for resolution of dispute for the election of President and the Vice President of the Gaon Panchayat which is to be decided by a District Commissioner and the said provision would not be applicable in the present case wherein the election is for a Ward Member. This Court has also examined the provisions of Section 111 of the Act
