The mandatory provisions of notice and quorum in the election process are crucial for ensuring valid democratic practices, and failure to adhere results in the annulment of electoral resolutions.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, J.

8 nos. of petitioners have joined together in instituting the present challenge by filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India whereby challenge has been made to the first meeting of No.1 Mankachar Anchalik Panchayat, South Salmara-Mankachar dated 19.07.2025 wherein the President and Vice-President were elected.

2. As per the facts projected, the elections of the aforesaid Anchalik Panchayat were held in May, 2025 and on 14.07.2025, the first meeting of the concerned Anchalik Panchayat was convened but as no members were present, the meeting was deferred to 19.07.2025. It is the case of the petitioners that even such postponement was not duly notified and within a span of 4 days, the meeting was held on 19.07.2025 and the respondent nos. 8 and 9 were respectively elected as the President and Vice-President of the Anchalik Panchayat. It is the specific case of the petitioners that the said election is vitiated on three counts –(i) lack of proper notice; (ii) lack of quorum and (iii)the meeting was presided by an unauthorised Officer.

3. I have also heard Shri K.N. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri R. Islam, learned counsel for the petitioners. I have also heard Ms. M. Barman, learned State Counsel; Shri R. Dubey, learned Standing Counsel, Assam State Election Commission; Ms. P. Thapa, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Shri S. Dutta, learned Standing Counsel, Panchayat and Rural Development Department and Shri M. Dutta, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 8 to 16.

4. Shri Choudhury, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that before holding the impugned meeting, no proper notice was served upon the petitioners. He has submitted that as per law, there is a requirement to give at least 7 days time for holding the meeting and admittedly, in the instant case, only 4 days time was given. He has further submitted that the total nos. of members is 36 and the quorum which is 1/3rd should be 12 members. However, the numbers of members present were only 9. He has also submitted that the meeting was presided by an unauthorised person which vitiated the same. The learned Senior Counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to Rule 48(1) and Rule 48(3) of the Assam Panchayat (Constitution) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter the Rules of 1995) and has submitted that under Rule 48(1), the requirement of notice has been laid down whereas in Rule 48(3), the requirement of quorum has been laid down. He submits that both the requirements are mandatory in nature, which have been violated in the present case and therefore, the impugned resolution of the meeting dated 19.07.2025 are unsustainable in law.

5. Ms. M. Barman, learned State Counsel has however submitted that the first ground of challenge is without any basis inasmuch as the meeting was in fact called on 14.07.2025 which had to be deferred because of lack of members and was reconvened on 19.07.2025 and therefore, the technical aspect of giving 7 days notice is fulfilled. She has, however, fairly submitted that from the materials available, the quorum required does not appear to have been fulfilled. However, she has added that the petitioners on their own volition had chosen not to attend the meeting. The third ground that the meeting was presided by an unauthorised person has been refuted by her. She has also placed before this Court written instructions dated 10.12.2025.

6. Ms. P. Thapa, learned counsel representing the P&RD Department has endorsed the submission of the l