1. 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 learned State Counsel. Ms. A.B. Kayastha, learned counsel representing the State Election Commission has submitted that the Commission does not have any significant role in the present dispute.

7. Shri M. Dutta, 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 the meeting could not be held on the convened date, i.e., 14.07.2025, it was deferred to 19.07.2025 and the petitioners were fully aware of the same and had chosen not to attend the same. He has added that since the petitioners had intentionally avoided from attending the meeting, they are precluded from raising the issue of lack of quorum. He has also denied that the meeting was conducted by unauthorised person.

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. A perusal of the impugned resolution dated 19.07.2025 clearly reveals that it is a deferred meeting as there was no attendance on the notified date which was on 14.07.2025. It is not in dispute that the nos. of members present in the meeting held on 19.07.2025 was 9 whereas the total nos. of members of the Gaon Panchayat is 36. The quorum as per Rule 48 (3) is 1/3rd which comes to 12.

10. As noted above, Rule 48(1) is with regard to the aspect of notice and Rule 48(3) is with regard to the aspect of the requirement of quorum. For ready reference, both the aforesaid provisions are extracted hereinbelow:

                   “48. Election of President and Vice-President of Anchalik Panchayat. –

                   (1) The Deputy Commissioner or the Officer authorised by him in this behalf as under, subsection (1) of Section 37 of the Act, shall as soon as possible after the completion of election as under Section 32 of the Act, convene the first meeting of the Anchalik Panchayat comprising the members as under subsection (1) of Section 32 of the Act, by fixing a date, time and place and specifying the purpose and by causing a written notice to be served on each of the said members of the Anchalik Panchayat at least seven days before the date so fixed. Such meeting shall be presided over as under sub-section (1) of Section 37 of the Act, and such Officer shall not be entitled to vote.

                   (2) …

                   (3) If one third of the total number of members as under subsection (1) of Section 32 of the act, called to the meeting under sub-rule (1) are not present within an hour of the time fixed for the meeting, the Officer as under sub-rule (1) shall adjourn the meeting pending fixation of another date by the Deputy Commissioner not later than fifteen days from the date of such meeting.”

11. The contention of the petitioners is that both the aforesaid provisions of law have been violated and further that the meeting was held by an unauthorised person.

12. Even if it is assumed that the first and the third ground of challenge are answered against the petitioners, the aspect of fulfilling the quorum would still remain. This Court is of the opinion that the provisions of the statute are mandatory in nature which are in sync with the objective of having a grass root democracy. It clearly appears that the quorum was not fulfilled.

13. Shri Choudhury, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has also placed before this Court a judgment dated 15.10.2025 passed in WP(C)/4237/2025 in which an intervention was made on a similar circumstance. He has relied upon another judgment dated 15.12.2025 passed in WP(C)/4272/2025.

14. Considering the facts and circumstances and the requirement of the statute, this Court is of the opinion that the resolution taken in the impugned meeting held on 19.07.2025 pertaining to the elections of the respondent nos. 8 and 9 as President and Vice-President are unsustainable in law and accordingly interfered with and set aside.

15. Consequently, it is directed that a fresh meeting be held for election of the President and the Vice-President of the Panchayat of the No.1 Mankachar Anchalik Panchayat, South Salmara- Mankachar under the aegis of the District Commissioner, South Salmara- Mankachar in accordance with law. Since the petitioners are before this Court, there is no requirement to issue any fresh / formal notice and such meeting be held on 29.12.2025 in the Office of the Anchalik Panchayat at 10 AM.

16. The writ petition stands allowed in the manner indicated above. The written instructions dated 10.12.2025 placed by the learned State Counsel are kept with the records

17. No order as to cost.