The court affirmed that the quorum requirement under Rule 46(3) was fulfilled with six members present, and emphasized the necessity of adhering to principles of natural justice in decision-making processes.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjay Kumar Medhi, J.

An Order dated 10.09.2025 passed by the District Commissioner, Biswanath by st which the 1st meeting of the 14 No. Ghiladhari Mukh Gaon Panchayat has been cancelled is the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition. In the said meeting, the petitioner was elected as the President of the Gaon Panchayat.

2. The facts, briefly stated are that the petitioner is an elected member of the st aforesaid Gaon Panchayat, the elections of which was held on May, 2025. The 1st meeting was accordingly convened on 27.06.2025 and admittedly, there were 6 members present in which the petitioner was elected as the President and another incumbent, amongst the 6 members was elected as the Vice President. The private respondent nos. 8, 9, 10 and 11 herein had however submitted a representation against such election before the District Commissioner on 04.07.2025, mainly, on the contention that the quorum was not fulfilled. The complaint states that there should be 7 (seven) members present.

3. As the said representation was not considered and disposed of, the private respondent nos. 8, 9, 10 and 11 had instituted WP(C)/3954/2025. This Court vide order dated 18.07.2025 while issuing notice had observed that pendency of the writ petition shall not be a bar for disposal of the representation. Basing upon such st observations, the impugned order has been passed on 10.09.2025 whereby the 1st meeting was cancelled on the ground of lack of quorum. Subsequently, vide an order dated 17.09.2025, the aforesaid writ petition was closed as infructuous. It is the aforesaid order dated 10.09.2025 which is the subject matter of challenge, as indicated above.

4. I have heard Shri P.P. Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also heard Shri H. Sharma, learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate, Assam for the official respondents, Ms. P. Thapa, learned counsel appearing on instructions of Shri S. Dutta, learned Standing Counsel, P&RD, Shri M.K. Hussain, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 8 & 11, Shri A.M. Ahmed, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 9 and 10 and Shri A. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 12 to 16.

5. Shri Dutta, the learned counsel for the petitioner has formulated his arguments mainly on two grounds. Firstly, he has contended that the impugned order has been passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. Secondly, he has contended that there has been gross misinterpretation of the provisions of law leading to the impugned action.

6. Elaborating his submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the impugned action culminating in the order dated 10.09.2025 has been passed without giving any opportunity to the petitioner. He submits that the petitioner was in dark when the decision was taken and thereby, the principles of natural justice has been grossly violated.

7. On the second ground, the learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the provisions of Rule 46 (3) of the Assam Panchayat (Constitution) Rules, 1995 (herein after called the Rules) and has submitted that to st rd hold the 1st meeting, there is a requirement of minimum 1/3 of the total numbers of members and it is not in dispute that the total number of members present in the meeting held on 27.06.2025 was 6. He has submitted that there has been a mechanical application of mind and the impugned order has been passed resulting in grave miscarriage of justice.

8. Shri Sharma, the learned Senior Government Advocate has however submitted tha