Mandatory notice and quorum requirements for Panchayat elections must be fulfilled for meetings to be valid; violation renders the election results unsustainable.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, J.

5 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 5 No. Nayeralga Anchalik Panchayat, Dhubri dated 15.07.2025 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 11.07.2025, the first meeting of the concerned Anchalik Panchayat was held in which the respondent nos. 6 to 11 were present. It is contended that the petitioners were not given notice of such meeting for which they could not attend the same. Be that as it may, since the quorum was not fulfilled and the total number of members is 24, the meeting was postponed and held on 15.07.2025. It is the case of the petitioners that even such postponement was not notified and on 15.07.2025 and the respondent nos. 6 and 11 were respectively elected as the President and Vice- President of the Anjalik Panchayat. It is the specific case of the petitioners that the said election is vitiated both on the count of lack of quorum as well as due notice to the elected ward members.

3. I have also heard Shri TJ Mahanta, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri DA Kaiyum, learned counsel for the petitioners. I have also heard Shri BJ Talukdar, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate for the State of Assam; 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 AR Bhuyan, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 6, 7, 9, 10 & 11. None appears for the respondent no. 8 in spite of name of the learned counsel being shown in the cause list.

4. Shri Mahanta, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that before holding the impugned meeting, no notice was served upon the petitioners and there was no quorum. 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 15.07.2025 are unsustainable in law. He has contended that the representation dated 16.07.2025 submitted before the District Commissioner, Dhubri has not been considered.

5. Shri B.J. Talukdar, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate has however submitted that the ground of non-issuance of notice is not factually correct as notices were indeed tried to be served upon the petitioners who had evaded the same. He has, however, fairly submitted that from the materials available, the quorum required does not appear to have been fulfilled.

6. Shri Bhuyan, learned counsel for the private respondents has strenuously opposed the writ petition and has submitted that the petitioners are trying to take advantage of their own wrong. It is submitted that as per instructions received, the notices were attempted to be served on the petitioners who had refused such acceptance and had intentionally avoided from attending the meeting and therefore, they are precluded from raising the issue of lack of quorum.

7. Shri Dubey, learned Standing Counsel, Assam State Election Commission has submitted that the Commission does not have any role in the adjudication of the present dispute.

8. The rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties have been duly considered and the materials placed before this Court have been carefully examined.

9. It appears that the grievance of the petitioners have been made before the District Commissioner,