1. 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, Dhubri vide a representation dated 16.07.2025 which has not been disposed of till now. Though there is no specific provision for resolution of a dispute for the election of the President and Vice-President of an Anchalik Panchayat in the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994, however for such disputes concerning the Gaon Panchayat, a provision is there in Section 11. Be that as it may, it is not in dispute that the representation dated 16.07.2025 which has been filed has not been disposed of.

10. A perusal of the impugned resolution dated 15.07.2025 clearly reveal that the same was taken without fulfilling the requirement of quorum. 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.

12. Even if it is assumed that the petitioners had intentionally evaded the aspect of acceptance of notice which is contended by the learned counsel for the respondents, the aspect of fulfilling the quorum would still remain. This Court is of the opinion that both the required are mandatory in nature as the same are in sync with the objective of having a grass root democracy. As noted above, the total numbers of members present in the meeting held on 15.07.2025 is 6, whereas it is not in dispute that the total number of members in the Anchalik Panchayat is 24. It clearly appears that the quorum was not fulfilled.

13. Shri Mahanta, 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 and the only distinguishing factor is that in the said case, the challenge was on the aspect of non serving of notice only.

14. Shri Bhuyan, learned counsel for the private respondents has submitted that the said decision has been put to challenge in WA/348/2025. However, he has fairly informed that there is no interim order.

15. 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 15.07.2025 pertaining to the election of the respondent nos. 6 and 11 as President and Vice-President is unsustainable in law and accordingly interfered with and set aside.

16. Consequently, it is directed that a fresh meeting be held for election of the President and the Vice-President of the Panchayat of the 5 No. Nayeralga Anchalik Panchayat, Dhubri under the aegis of the District Commissioner, Dhubri 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.

17. The writ petition stands allowed in the manner indicated above.

18. No order as to cost.