Judgment & Order (Oral):

1. Heard Mr. K. N. Choudhury, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. J. Abedin, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Writ Petitioner in WP(C) No.6284/2025 and Mr. H. R. A. Choudhury, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. I. Uddin, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Writ Petitioner in WP(C) No.3535/2025. I have also heard Mr. S. Dutta, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the P&RD Department; Mr. R. Dubey, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State Election Commission and Ms. M. Barman, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the District Commissioner, Dhubri.

2. The Writ Petitioner in WP(C) No.3535/2025 is the Respondent No.5 in WP(C) No.6284/2025 and the Writ Petitioner in WP(C) No.6284/2025 is the Respondent No.5 in WP(C) No. 3535/2025. It has been submitted by the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Writ Petitioner in WP(C) No.6284/2025 that the issues involved in both the writ petitions are covered by the judgment and order dated 23.02.2026 passed in the case of Aysha Khatun vs. State of Assam and 5 Others in WP(C) No.7351/2025, reported in 2026:GAU-AS:2734. Be that as it may, this Court finds it relevant to take note of the brief facts which led to the filing of both the writ petitions.

3. In the Panchayat Elections of 2025 held for the post of Member, Ward No.7 of No.4 Rangamati Gaon Panchayat under No.1 Folihamari Zilla Parishad in the district of Dhubri, the Writ Petitioner in WP(C) No.3535/2025 as well as the Writ Petitioner in WP(C) No.6284/2025 contested the said election. The Writ Petitioner in WP(C) No.6284/2025 was declared elected as the Member of Ward No.7 of No.4 Rangamati Gaon Panchayat under No.1 Folihamari Zilla Parishad on 11.05.2025. The Writ Petitioner in WP(C) No.3535/2025 did not challenge the election of the Writ Petitioner in WP(C) No.6284/2025 within the period stipulated in terms with Article 243-O of the Constitution read with Section 129 of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994 (for short, ‘the Act of 1994’) by way of an election petition. However, the husband of the Petitioner in WP(C) No.3535/2025 submitted a representation on 15.05.2025 to the Respondent Authorities demanding removal of the Writ Petitioner in WP(C) No.6284/2025. As no steps were taken in that regard, the Petitioner approached this Court by filing the writ petition on 19.06.2025 which was registered and numbered as WP(C) No.3535/2025.

4. This Court vide an order dated 23.06.2025 issued notice and further observed that pendency of the writ petition shall not bar the appropriate authority to take a decision in accordance with law.

5. Subsequent thereto, while the writ petition being WP(C) No.3535/2025 was pending, proceedings were initiated by the District Commissioner, Dhubri against the Writ Petitioner in WP(C) No.6284/2025 and vide an order dated 29.10.2025, the Writ Petitioner in WP(C) No.6284/2025 was held to be disqualified as per the provisions of Section 111(2)(a) of the Act of 1994 read with Rule 62(1)(f) of the Assam Panchayat (Constitution) Rules, 1995 and removed from the Ward Member of No.4 Rangamati Gaon Panchayat with immediate effect. The said order dated 29.10.2025 is assailed in WP(C) No.6284/2025.

6. The learned Coordinate Bench of this Court vide an order dated 06.11.2025 while issuing notice had stayed the impugned order dated 29.10.2025 passed by the District Commissioner, Dhubri and further directed that the WP(C) No.6284/2025 be tagged along with WP(C) No.3535/2025.

7. The records further reveal that the Writ Petitioner in WP(C) No.3535/2025 had filed an Interlocutory Application being registered and numbered as I.A.(C) No.3977/2025 thereby seeking vacation, modification and/or alteration of the order dated 06.11.2025. Both the writ petitions thereupon were listed before this Court on 30.03.2026 and this Court vide an order fixed the writ petitions today for final disposal.

8. In the backdrop of the aforementioned facts, the question arises as to whether the judgment of this Court in the case of Aysha Khatun (supra) covers the issues involved in the instant proceedings.

9. It is relevant to take note that the Writ Petitioner in WP(C) No.6284/2025 was disqualified vide the impugned order dated 29.10.2025 on the ground that the Petitioner had incurred disqualification in terms with Section 111(2)(a) of the Act of 1994 read with Rule 62(1)(f) of the Rules of 1995. A further perusal of the impugned order dated 29.10.2025 reveals that upon enquiry being conducted, it was reported that the Petitioner in WP(C) No.6284/2025 had seven children from multiple partners prior to 19.03.2018 which is the effective date of implementation of amendment made in the Act of 1994. Further to that, the Petitioner in WP(C) No.6284/2025 had also another child born from his second wife, Mofida Khatun on 10.10.2018, and it is under such circumstances, the impugned order dated 29.10.2025 was passed. From the very impugned order dated 29.10.2025 and assuming the ground to be correct, it is apparent that the Petitioner in WP(C) No.6284/2025 had an existing disqualification as on the date of submission of the nomination paper.

10. Be that as it may, the nomination paper of the Petitioner in WP(C) No.6284/2025 was not rejected, rather the said Petitioner was permitted to contest the election. Pursuant to the election being conducted and the results declared on 11.05.2025, the Petitioner in WP(C) No.3535/2025 did not file an election petition challenging the acceptance of the nomination paper of the Petitioner in WP(C) No.6284/2025. On the other hand, a representation was submitted on 15.05.2025 by the husband of the Petitioner.

11. In the backdrop of the above, as the Petitioner in WP(C) No.6284/2025 was allegedly disqualified on the date of submission of the nomination, the question arises as to whether the District Commissioner had the jurisdiction to pass the order dated 29.10.2025.

12. This Court, in this regard, finds it relevant to take note of another judgment passed by this Court on 13.03.2026 in the case of Sri Ferdaus Rahman Mazumder vs State of Assam & 6 Others , reported in 2026:GAU-AS:3725 wherein this Court had deduced the ratio laid down in the case of Aysha Khatun (supra) along with the relevant provisions of the Constitution of India, the Act of 1994 and the Rules of 1995. Paragraph No.48 of the said judgment is reproduced herein under:-

                   “48. The following propositions may be culled out from the observations made by this Court in the case of Aysha Khatun (supra) read with the provisions of the Constitution, Act of 1994 and Rules of 1995.

                   (A) Article 243F of the Constitution stipulates when a candidate would be disqualified for being chosen as and for being a member of the Panchayat.

                   (B) Section 111 of Act of 1994 however uses the expressions "elected or co-opted" and "and remain". There appears to be a reason for doing so in as much as Section 111 of the Act of 1994 not only speaks of being a Member of the Panchayat, but also to be elected or co-opted and remain as President or Vice President of Zilla Parishad, Anchalik Panchayat and Gaon Panchayat.

                   (C) The proposition so laid down in Aysha Khatun (supra) has to be understood in the context of as election and to remain as Member of the Panchayat that would be election and to remain as Member of Zilla Parishad, Anchalik Panchayat and Gaon Panchayat. This is so because to be chosen as a Member of the Panchayat, the person has to be elected in an election conducted by the State Election Commission constituted in terms with Article 243K of the Constitution read with Section 114 of the Act of 1994. The bar contained in Article 243-O of the Constitution read with Section 129 of the Act of 1994 is only in respect to elections conducted by the State Election Commission.

                   However, election to the posts of President and Vice President of the Gaon Panchayat, Anchalik Panchayat as well Zilla Parishad are outside the purview of the State Election Commission or even the electoral process conducted by the State Election Commission.

                   The posts of President and Vice President of the Gaon Panchayat, Anchalik Panchayat as well as Zilla Parishad are held under the control and supervision of the District Commissioner or any officer delegated by the District Commissioner as would be apparent from a perusal of Section 6, 37 and 70 of the Act of 1994 read with Rules 46, 48 and 50 of the Rules of 1995.

                   (D) In the case of Aysha Khatun (supra), this Court categorically held that in respect of a disqualification which existed at the time of submission of the nomination paper, the said would come within the purview of improper acceptance of the nomination paper. This Court further held that an improper acceptance of the nomination paper whereby the election of the returned candidate have been materially effected being a ground for declaration of the election to be void, the improper acceptance of the nomination paper, being a part of the election process, the same has to be challenged by way of an election petition by presenting the same before the Election Tribunal within the period of 60 days from the date of declaration of the results of the election. This Court also held that the District Commissioner had no jurisdiction and competence to decide the question of disqualification for being a Member of Panchayat if such disqualification existed at the time of submission of the nomination.”

13. Upon applying the aforementioned principles of law laid down by this Court in the case of Sri Ferdaus Rahman Mazumder (supra), it is the opinion of this Court that as the impugned order dated 29.10.2025 related to a disqualification pertaining to Section 111(2)(a) of the Act of 1994 and the said disqualification was existing at the time of filing of the nomination paper by the Writ Petitioner in WP(C) No.6284/2025, the District Commissioner, Dhubri, therefore, had no jurisdiction to decide the disqualification of the petitioner in WP(C) No.6284/2025.

14. Accordingly, both the writ petitions stand disposed of with the following observations and directions:

                   (i) The writ petition being WP(C) No.3535/2025 is dismissed.

                   (ii) The impugned order dated 29.10.2025 assailed in WP(C) No.6284/2025 as well as all consequential action(s) taken on the basis of the impugned order dated 29.10.2025 are set aside and quashed.

15. Interim order(s), if any, stands vacated.

16. The Interlocutory Application being I.A.(C) No.3977/2025 stands closed in view of the above observations.