An administrative authority lacks jurisdiction to disqualify an elected representative based on conditions existing at the time of nomination. Such claims concern the improper acceptance of nominations and must be adjudicated through an election petition before a tribunal, rather than by executive order.

JUDGMENT :

DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.

Heard Mr. A.M. Ahmed, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. S.S. Roy, the learned Government Advocate appears on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2 to 5 and Mr. S. Dutta, the learned Standing Counsel appears on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 and 6.

2. The petitioner herein is aggrieved by the order dated 02.07.2025 passed by the District Commissioner, Morigaon whereby the petitioner was disqualified under Section 111(2)(f) of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994 (for short, “the Act of 1994”) read with Rule 62(4)(b) and (c) of the Assam Panchayat (Constitution) Rules, 1995 (for short, “the Rules of 1995”) on the ground that as per the report of Shri Pramod Sharma, ACS, Assistant Commissioner, Laharighat, the petitioner was a minor on the date of her marriage on 15.09.2013 and thereby the marriage was in violation to the provisions of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act (PCMA), 2006.

3. It has been submitted at the Bar that the issue involved in the instant writ petition is covered by the judgment and order dated 23.02.2026 passed in the case of Aysha Khatun Vs. State of Assam & 5 Others in WP(C) No. 7351/2025, reported in 2026:GAU-AS:2734

4. The brief facts leading to the filing of the instant case, as it appears from the materials on record are that the petitioner contested for the post of Ward Member from Ward No. 9 of 40 No. Dhumkura Gaon Panchayat, and the petitioner’s nomination was scrutinized on 12.04.2025 by the Authorized Officer. Thereupon, the names of the contesting candidates were published on 17.04.2025 by the Authorized Officer. In the polling held on 07.05.2025 and the counting which took place on 11.05.2025, the petitioner was declared the winning candidate, having secured 513 votes and the respondent No. 2 issued the winning certificate on 20.05.2025 in favour of the petitioner.

5. It is the further case of the petitioner that pursuant to a notice dated 30.06.2025 directing the petitioner to appear in an enquiry to be held at the office of the Co-District Commissioner, Laharighat, the respondent No. 3 herein conducted an inquiry and submitted a report on 02.07.2025. On the same date, i.e., 02.07.2025, the respondent No. 2 passed the impugned order whereby the petitioner was disqualified and removed from the post of Ward Member of Ward No. 9 of 40 No. Dhumkura Gaon Panchayat on the purported violation of the provisions of Section 111(2)(f) of the Act of 1994 read with Rule 62(4)(b) and (c) of the Rules of 1995. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has challenged the said order before this Court by filing the present writ petition.

6. The learned Coordinate Bench of this Court vide the order dated 13.08.2025 while issuing notice stayed the impugned order dated 02.07.2025.

7. In the backdrop of the above facts, the question that arises is whether the judgment of this Court in the case of Aysha Khatun (supra) covers the issues involved in the present writ petition.

8. It is relevant to take note of that the petitioner was disqualified vide the impugned order dated 02.07.2025 on the ground that the petitioner had incurred disqualification in terms with Section 111(2)(f) of the Act of 1994 read with Rule 62(4)(b) and (c) of the Rules of 1995. A further perusal of the impugned order reveals that an inquiry was conducted wherein it was found that the petitioner’s date of birth is 01.01.1997 and the petitioner’s date of marriage is 15.09.2013, and accordingly, the petitioner was a minor on the date of her marriage.

9. The materials on record would show that the impugned order is in violation to the