1. In this writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, assail is made to a decision arrived at and given by the respondent no. 5 in connection with the election conducted on 30.06.2025 for the post of President of 39 Choudhury Bazar Gaon Panchayat within Binakandi Development Block and Hojai Zilla Parishad. The petitioner has challenged the decision to declare the respondent no. 7 as the President of 39 Choudhury Bazar Gaon Panchayat and has sought for a direction to the respondent authorities to re-conduct the election to the post of President, 39 Choudhury Bazar Gaon Panchayat. In addition, the petitioner has sought for an appropriate writ for setting aside of an Order dated 29.07.2025 passed in Election Petition no. 03/2025 whereby the District Judge, Hojai returned the Election Petition preferred by the petitioner and also for a direction to the Election Tribunal, Nagaon to entertain the election petition to be re-filed by the petitioner by condoning the delay.

2. The background facts leading to the institution of the writ petition can be narrated at first. Vide a Notification dated 02.04.2025, the Assam State Election Commission [ASEC] notified the Schedule of General Election to the Panchayats in the State of Assam. As per the notification, the date of polling for election to the Panchayats in Hojai district was scheduled in the second phase on 07.05.2025.

3. The petitioner is an elector from Village – Marjong Pather, which falls within the territorial limits of Ward no. 3 of 39 Choudhury Bazar Gaon Panchayat. To contest in the election for Ward Member from Ward no. 3, the petitioner filed her nomination paper which, on scrutiny, was accepted. The respondent no. 7 stood in the election for Ward Member from Ward no. 9 of Choudhury Bazar Gaon Panchayat. After counting of votes on 11.05.2025, the petitioner and the respondent no. 7 were declared elected as Ward Members from Ward no. 3 and Ward no. 9 respectively of Choudhury Bazar Gaon Panchayat.

4. After declaration of the results of the Panchayat Election, 2025, the District Commissioner, Hojai [the respondent no. 4] passed an Order on 10.06.2025 authorizing a number of officials from the District Administration, Hojai/Hojai Zilla Parishad to conduct and preside over the first meeting of the Gaon Panchayats within Hojai district as per the scheduled time and date at the concerned Gaon Panchayat offices as per the provisions of Section 6[3] of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994, as amended, and Rule 46 of the Assam Panchayat [Constitution] Rules, 1995. The first meeting was called for two purposes, firstly, to administer oath of affirmation to the newly elected Gaon Panchayat Ward Members; and secondly, to elect the President and the Vice- President of the Gaon Panchayats from amongst the elected Ward Members as per procedure. In so far as the first meeting for Choudhury Bazar Gaon Panchayat was concerned, the Block Development Officer [BDO], Binakandi Development Block [the respondent no. 5] was notified as the Authorised Officer to conduct and preside over the first meeting of Choudhury Bazar Gaon Panchayat, which was scheduled at 11-30 a.m. on 24.06.2025. The details of the Secretary of Choudhury Bazar Gaon Panchayat was mentioned in the Order dated 10.06.2025.

5. It may be stated that the post of President of Choudhury Bazar Gaon Panchayat was unreserved whereas the post of Vice-President was reserved for woman.

6. Another Order came to be issued by the respondent no. 4 on 18.06.2025 in partial modification of the previous Order dated 10.06.2025 whereby the first Meeting of few of the Gaon Panchayats were re-scheduled. By the Order dated 18.06.2025, the first Meeting of Choudhury Bazar Gaon Panchayat was rescheduled at 11-30 a.m. on 24.06.2025 and it was to be held under the supervision of the respondent no. 5 as the Authorised Official in the Office Chamber of the BDO, Binakandi Development Block.

                   6.1. In the first Meeting of Choudhury Bazar Gaon Panchayat convened on 24.06.2025, there was lack of quorum. Due to want of quorum, neither the act of oath of affirmation to the Gaon Panchayat Ward Members was performed nor the election to the posts of President and Vice-President of Choudhury Bazar Gaon Panchayat could be held on that day. The first Meeting of Choudhury Gaon Panchayat had, therefore, to be deferred till 30.06.2025. By another notice issued under the hand of the Secretary, Choudhury Bazar Gaon Panchayat on 25.06.2025, the newly elected Gaon Panchayat Ward Members were informed that the Meeting of Choudhury Bazar Gaon Panchayat would be held at 11-30 a.m. on 24.06.2025 in the Office of the BDO, Binakandi Development Block.

7. In the Meeting convened on 30.06.2025, all the ten newly elected Ward Members of Choudhury Gaon Panchayat were present. The Authorised Officer, at first, administered oath of affirmation to all the ten newly elected Ward Members. Thereafter, the Authorised Officer initiated the process of holding election for President and Vice-President of the Gaon Panchayat. For the post of President, the names of the petitioner and the respondent no. 7 were proposed and seconded by the Ward Members. As there were more than one candidate, the Authorised Officer decided to go for voting process through secret ballots wherein all the ten Ward Members participated. After opening of the ballot boxes, the votes were counted and it was found that both the candidates – the petitioner and the respondent no. 7 – secured five votes each resulting in a tie.

8. As both the candidates for the post of President secured equal number of votes, the Authorised Officer announced that the tie would be broken by toss of a coin. As all the Ward Members gave consent for tossing up of a coin, the coin was tossed. Prior to the toss of coin, the petitioner and the respondents were assigned their respective sides. On toss of the coin, the result came in favour of the respondent no. 7. The Authorised Officer declared the respondent no. 7 as elected to the post of President of Choudhury Bazar Gaon Panchayat.

9. In the Meeting held on 30.06.2025, the election to the post of Vice-President was also held. The names of two candidates were proposed and seconded by the Ward Members. Voting was held through secret ballots wherein all the ten elected Ward Members cast their votes. On counting of votes, it was turned out that both the candidates – Smti. Husnara Begum and Smti. Sadiya Begum – secured five votes each. Like the practice adopted to break the tie for the election of the President, it was decided to go for toss of a coin. On toss of the coin, the coin landed up in favour of Smti. Husnara Begum. The Authorised Officer accordingly, declared Smti. Husnara Begum as elected to the post of Vice-President of Choudhury Bazar Gaon Panchayat.

10. After the elections to the post of President and the Vice-President were complete, the President and the Vice-President so elected, were administered oath of office by the Authorised Officer. The Minutes of the Meeting, held on 30.06.2025, were drawn up on 30.06.2025 itself under the signatures and seals of the Authorised Officer and the Secretary, Choudhury Bazar Gaon Panchayat.

11. On 01.07.2025, five of the Ward Members of Choudhury Bazar Gaon Panchayat including the petitioner and Smti. Sadiya Begum, submitted a Representation before the respondent no. 4 complaining about irregularities occurred in the process of election conducted for the posts of President and Vice-President of Choudhury Bazar Gaon Panchayat. Thereafter, on 23.07.2025, the petitioner submitted a detail Representation before the respondent no. 4 alleging adoption of an unfair tie-breaker procedure in the election held for the post of President of Choudhury Bazar Gaon Panchayat on 30.06.2025.

12. When the Representations submitted by the petitioner did not evoke any response from the office of the respondent no. 4, the petitioner filed an election petition before the Court of District Judge, Hojai under Section 127 read with Section 129 of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994, as amended, challenging the election of the respondent no. 7 herein as President of Choudhury Bazar Gaon Panchayat. The petition was registered as Election Petition no. 03/2025. The District Judge, Hojai, at first, decided to examine the maintainability of the election petition on the ground of jurisdiction. Having considered a Notification dated 30.09.2000 of the Panchayat & Rural Development [P&RD] Department, Government of Assam whereby a number of Election Tribunals were constituted with the respective District Judges within their respective territorial jurisdiction as Presiding Officers to dispose of all direct election petitions, the District Judge, Hojai came to hold that an Election Tribunal was not, till then, constituted for Hojai district which was created subsequent to the Notification dated 30.09.2000. By an Order dated 29.07.2025, the District Judge, Hojai returned the petition filed by the petitioner as an election petition with a liberty to file election petition before the said Court as and when it would be notified as an Election Tribunal for the territorial areas of Hojai district.

13. It is after the return of the election petition on 29.07.2025, the petitioner has approached this Court by the present writ petition seeking the afore-stated reliefs.

14. I have heard Mr. T.A. Laskar, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. S.S. Roy, learned Junior Government Advocate, Assam for the respondent nos. 1, 2 & 4; Mr. R. Dubey, learned Standing Counsel, Assam State Election Commission [ASEC] for the respondent no. 3; Mr. S. Dutta, learned Standing Counsel, Panchayat & Rural Development Department for the respondent no. 5 & 6; and Mr. I.A. Talukdar, learned counsel for the respondent no. 7.

15. Mr. Laskar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that after the tie, consent was taken by the Authorised Officer for the tossing of the coin only. But after such consent, the Authorised Officer handed over the coin to an unauthorised person to toss the coin. There was never any consent for conducting toss of coin through an unauthorised and unidentified person. The said person was even not introduced to the Ward Members attending the Meeting. It is further contended that as regards the manner of tossing the coin, objections were raised verbally on the same day and thereafter, a Representation was filed on the next day, 01.07.2025. He has further submitted that the tossing of the coin through a third person was resorted to only for breaking the tie for election to the post of President but not for the election to the post of Vice-President. For the post of Vice-President, it was the Authorised Officer who tossed the coin himself to break the tie and the same contention is made in the written submissions also. Mr. Laskar has further submitted that in the Proceedings Book wherein the Minutes of the Meeting, held on 30.06.2025, were prepared, signatures of attendance were taken only at the beginning of the Meeting and no signatures were taken at the end of the Meeting. Submitting so, it is contended that the Minutes of the Meeting were prepared later. It is, thus, contended that the act of the Authorised Officer to entrust the toss of the coin to an unauthorised third person to break the tie had vitiated the entire process of election to the post of President of Choudhury Bazar Gaon Panchayat. According to Mr. Laskar, the Authorised Officer was exercising delegated power, which power could not have been further delegated. The entire process of toss of coin is, therefore, liable to be set aside and it is imperative to redo the process for a free and fair election.

                   15.1. To buttress his submissions that the act of entrustment to toss the coin to a third person was an act of sub-delegation by the Authorised Officer, who himself was a delegate, Mr. Laskar has referred to a decision of the Supreme Court of India in Union of India and others vs. B.V. Gopinath, [2014] 1 SCC 351, Para 47; and a decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.[C] no. 1434/2019 [Begum Afrooja Perveen vs. the State of Assam and others].

16. Mr. S.S. Roy, learned Junior Government Advocate, Assam appearing on behalf of the respondent nos. 1, 2 & 4 has made his submissions specifically referring to the statements and averments made in the affidavit-in-opposition. In the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the respondent no. 1, 2 & 4, it is averred that the Authorised Officer, that is, the BDO, Binakandi Development Block was present in the course of the entire Meeting held on 30.06.2025 and he presided over the Meeting. It is stated that the Secretary of Choudhury Bazar Gaon Panchayat, Sri Yasin Ali is a handicapped person. Sri Yasin Ali on 23.06.2025 submitted an application before the BDO, Binakandi Development Block to depute an Official to assist him in writing the proceedings of the Meeting and other works related to the election for President and Vice-President citing his disability. Accordingly, a Junior Assistant serving in Binakandi Development Block, Doboka, namely, Sri Imran Hussain Sheikh was deputed to assist Sri Yasin Ali in the process of election to be held for the posts of President and Vice-President vide an Order dated 23.06.2025 by the BDO, Binakandi Development Block, Doboka. It has been averred that it was Sri Imran Hussain Sheikh, Junior Assistant, who was permitted by the Authorised Officer to toss the coin with due permission of all the members present in the election process and the result, after the toss of coin, was declared by the Authorised Officer and all the members present in the Meeting accepted it and no objection was made at that time.

                   16.1. Mr. Roy, learned Junior Government Advocate, Assam has contended that entrusting the job of tossing of the coin to a subordinate official by the Authorised Officer in his presence cannot be termed as an act of sub delegation. There was no protest from any of the Ward Members present when the coin was tossed for breaking the ties for election to the posts of President and Vice-President. The submission made on behalf of the petitioner that the Authorised Officer tossed the coin to break the tie for electing the Vice-President is contrary to the statements made by the petitioner in her Representation dated 23.07.2025.

17. Mr. Dubey, learned Standing Counsel, ASEC has submitted that an election petition under Section 129[b] read with Section 127 of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994, as amended, is maintainable in case of any direct election and the election in question here is not direct election. As regards the Meeting held on 30.06.2025, Mr. Dubey has submitted that the entire proceedings of the Meeting under reference including the act of tossing of the coin were held under the direct supervision of the Authorised Officer and in presence of all the Ward Members of Gaon Panchayat. He has submitted that in tossing the coin, the Authorised Officer had merely took the assistance of the deputed Junior Assistant and the same cannot be termed as an act of sub-delegation.

18. Mr. Talukdar, learned counsel for the respondent no. 7 has made submissions by referring to the statements and averments made in the affidavit-inopposition filed by the respondent no. 7. He has pointed out that during the Meeting, the Authorised Officer took out a one-rupee coin from his own pocket and handed it over to a Junior Assistant deputed to assist the Secretary of Choudhury Bazar Gaon Panchayat, who is a handicapped person, to do the act of coin tossing, all the Ward Members present. The Ward Members accepted the same without any objection. The Authorised Officer was present throughout and it was as per his instruction and permission the Junior Assistant tossed the coin in front of all the elected Ward Members. The Junior Assistant was introduced earlier by the BDO and the entire process was held smoothly under videography with full consent and support of all the Ward Members. Mr. Talukdar has submitted that the question of conducting the coin toss by an unauthorised person does not arise as the same was done by a Government employee as per the instruction and permission of the Authorised Officer. The complaint lodged by the petitioner subsequently, is clearly an after thought as the petitioner did not raise any complaint as regards the process of election to the post of President during the entire course of the Meeting. He has pointed out that after declaration of the result of election to the post of President after the tossing of the coin, the petitioner participated in the process of election to the post of Vice-President wherein also the tie was broken by tossing of the coin through the same Junior Assistant. It is contended by him that the writ petition is devoid of any merits as the contentions raised have no material basis at all.

19. The submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties have received my consideration. I have also gone through the materials brought on record by the parties through their pleadings. The provisions of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994, as amended, and the Assam Panahcyat [Constitution] Rules, 1995, as amended, which have been referred to by the learned counsel for the parties during the course of their submissions, have been taken note of.

20. The marginal note of Section 6 of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994 came to be amended by the Assam Panchayat [Amendment] Act, 2023 and the earlier marginal note, ‘Constitution of Gaon Panchayat’ was substituted by marginal note, ‘Constitution of Gaon Panchayat and Election of President and Vice- President’. By the Assam Panchayat [Amendment] Act, 2023, sub-section [1] and sub-section [3] of Section 6 of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994 were also substituted.

21. As per substituted sub-section [1] of Section 6, the Gaon Panchayat shall consist of ten Members to be directly elected by the voters of the territorial constituencies of the Goan Panchayat area, one from each constituency in the manner, as may be prescribed. As per substituted sub-section [3] of Section 6, the District Commissioner or an Officer Authorised by the District Commissioner shall call a meeting of the Gaon Panchayat [which shall be hereinafter called as the first Meeting of the Gaon Panchayat] for election of a President and a Vice-President respectively from amongst the elected Members of Gaon Panchayat. The District Commissioner shall preside over the Meeting in the manner prescribed. The District Commissioner may delegate the power to preside over such meeting to any Gazetted Officer Serving in the meeting.

22. Rule 46 of the Assam Panchayat [Constitution] Rules, 1995 has provided for election of President and Vice-President of the Gaon Panchayats. The heading and a part of Rule 46 were substituted vide a Notification dated 24.12.2024. As per sub-rule [1] of Rule 46, the District Commissioner or a Sub-Divisional Officer, as the case may be, shall call the first Meeting of a Gaon Panchayat, by fixing a date and by causing a written notice specifying the date, time and place of the Meeting, to be served on each elected Member of the Gaon Panchayat at least seven days before the date so fixed. By Rule 46[2], the Authorised Officer has been empowered to administer the oath of affirmation to the Members of a Gaon Panchayat. Sub-rule [6] of Rule 46 has provided that if, more than one candidates have been proposed and seconded and have agreed to stand for election for President or Vice-President of a Gaon Panchayat the District Commissioner, or the case may be, the Authorised Officer is to conduct the election in the manner laid down therein by resorting to voting by secret ballots. The Members of the Gaon Panchayat would exercise their right to vote through secret ballots.

23. Sub-rule [8] of Rule 46 was also substituted by the Notification dated 24.12.2024. After substitution, sub-rule [8] of Rule 46 reads as under :-

                   [8] The District Commissioner shall, after completion of counting and recording of votes received by each candidate for each of the offices, declare the candidate who has secured highest numbers of votes against respective offices to be duly elected as the President and Vice-President of the Gaon Panchayat concerned. In case of the equality of votes of two or more candidates, declaration of the election shall be given by the said officers in the manner prescribed under Rule 45 of these rules.

                   23.1. According to sub-rule [9] of Rule 46, also substituted vide Notification dated 24.12.2024, declaration as to the election of the President and Vice-President of the Gaon Panchayat under sub-rule [8] by the Authorised Officer shall be final.

                   23.2. Rule 45[1] with heading, ‘Equality of Votes’, has inter alia prescribed that if after the counting of votes, it appears that two candidates of whom only one is to be declared elected, have received equal number of votes, the District Commissioner or the Officer as authorised by the District Commissioner, as the case may be, or any Officer authorised by him in that behalf, shall decide which of the two shall be declared elected by tossing up a coin in presence of such candidates. Each candidate shall be assigned one side of the coin by him or by the Officer just before the toss. The candidate whose side appears visible at the top of the coin after it has fallen flat on any plain ground or table, shall be declared elected.

24. From a conjoint reading of the afore-mentioned provisions of Section 6 of the Assam Panchayat Act and Rule 45 and Rule 46 of the Assam Panchayat [Constitution] Rules, as amended, it is clear that in the first Meeting of a Gaon Panchayat or in an adjourned Meeting convened after adjournment of the first Meeting due to lack of quorum, the District Commissioner, or the Officer authorised by him to whom the District Commissioner has delegated the power [‘the Authorised Officer’], has to preside over and conduct such Meeting as per the laid down procedure. The District Commissioner or the Authorised Officer shall, at first, administer the oath of affirmation to the newly elected Ward Members of the Gaon Panchayat. Thereafter, if more than one candidates’ names are proposed and seconded for and more than one candidate has agreed to stand for election to the post of President or Vice-President, as the case may be, the District Commissioner of the Authorised Officer has to conduct the election by allowing the newly elected Ward Members to elect the candidate of their choice through a voting process recording their choice on ballot papers. If after the counting of votes, it is found that two candidates standing for election to the post of President or Vice-President, as the case may be, have received equal number of votes in the ballots resulting in a tie, then the District Commissioner or the Authorised Officer is required to decide the winner by tossing up a coin after assigning one side of the coin to each of them.

25. It is not in dispute that in the Meeting held on 30.06.2025, all ten of the newly elected Ward Members of Choudhury Bazar Gaon Panchayat were present. The District Commissioner, Hojai by Order dated 18.06.2025 had Authorised the BDO, Binakandi Development Block [the respondent no. 5] as the Authorised Officer to preside over and conduct the first Meeting of Choudhury Bazar Gaon Panchayat as per the provisions of Section 6[3] of the Assam Panchayat Act and Rule 46 of the Assam Panchayat [Constitution] Rules. Due to lack of quorum in the originally scheduled first Meeting of the Gaon Panchayat on 24.06.2025, the Meeting stood adjourned to 30.06.2025 as per provisions of Rule 46[3] of the Assam Panchayat [Constitution] Rules, as amended.

26. As already mentioned above, the Authorised Officer had, at first, administered oath of affirmation to all the ten newly elected Ward Members of Choudhury Bazar Gaon Panchayat. After administering oath of affirmation, the Authorised Officer proceeded to hold the election for the posts of President and Vice- President of the Gaon Panchayat. For the post of President, the names of the petitioner and the respondent no. 7 were proposed and seconded. Both the petitioner and the respondent no. 7 agreed to stand for election. Similarly, for the post of Vice-President, the names of Smti. Husnara Begum and Smti. Sadiya Begum were proposed and seconded and both of them also agreed to stand for election to the post of Vice-President. In the voting process through ballot papers for election to the post of President, which was held at first, there were equality of votes as both the petitioner and the respondent no. 7 secured five votes each resulting in a tie. In view of the tie, the Authorised Officer had to resort to the process of tossing up of a coin to break the tie and to decide the winner, as statutorily prescribed under Rule 45 read with Rule 46 of the Assam Panchayat [Constitution] Rules, as amended.

27. A grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent no. 5 as the Authorised Officer did not toss up the coin himself and allowed a third person to toss up the coin for election of the President of the Gaon Panchayat between the petitioner and the respondent no. 7. According to the petitioner, by allowing a third person to toss up the coin, the Authorised Officer had sub-delegated the function which was an essential function on his part and as such, the process of election for the post of President of the Gaon Panchayat stood vitiated.

28. The issue which has, thus, arisen is whether the Authorised Officer by allowing a third person to toss up the coin in order to break the tie had further delegated his power against the settled principle that a delegate cannot delegate. Delegatus non potest delegare is a legal maxim, which means a delegate cannot delegate. The principle that a delegate cannot delegate signifies that someone given a power or authority by another cannot further pass on that power or authority to someone else by way of sub-delegation, unless permitted by the authority who has delegated such power or authority. If one has been entrusted with a delegated power, he must exercise it himself and cannot pass it down to someone else as a sub-delegate without permission.

29. In Paragraph 47 in B.V. Gopinath [supra], the decision in Sahni Mills [P] Ltd. vs. ESI Corporation, [1994] 5 SCC 346, has been referred to, wherein the principle that a delegate cannot delegate has been given recognition. In Sahni Mills [P] Ltd. [supra], it is held to be settled that the legislature can permit any statutory authority to delegate its power to any other authority, after the policy has been indicated in the statute itself within the framework of which such delegatee has to exercise the power. The real problem or the controversy arises when there is sub-delegation. It is said that when Parliament has specifically appointed an authority to discharge a function, it cannot be readily presumed that it had intended that its delegate should be free to empower another person or body to act in its place.

30. On delegation of administrative powers, the Supreme Court in Sidharth Sarawgi vs. Board of Trustees for the Port of Kolkata and others, [2014] 16 SCC 248, has observed to the effect that regarding delegation of nonlegislative / administrative powers on a person or a body to do certain things, whether the delegate himself is to perform such functions or whether after taking decision as per the terms of the delegation, the said agency can authorise the implementation of the same on somebody else, is the question to be considered. Once the power is conferred, after exercising the power, how to implement the decision taken in the process, is a matter of procedure. So long as the essential function of decision making is performed by the delegate, the burden of performing the ancillary and clerical task need not be shouldered by the primary delegate. It is not necessary that the primary delegate himself should perform the ministerial acts as well. In furtherance of the implementation of the decision already taken by the primary delegate as per the delegation, ministerial or clerical task may be performed by authorised officers. It cannot be expected that the head of the administrative body performs each and every task himself. Practical necessities or exigencies of administration require that the decision-making authority who has been conferred with statutory power, be able to delegate task when the situation so requires. Thus, the maxim delegatus non potest delegare, gives way in the performance of administrative or ministerial task by subordinate authority in furtherance of the exercise of the delegated power by an authority.

31. After considering the decisions in Sahni Mills [P] Ltd. [supra] and Sidhartha Sarawgi [supra], the Supreme Court in Inspector General of Registration, Tamil Nadu and others vs. K. Baskaran, [2020] 14 SCC 345, has summed up the principles in the following words :-

                   14. The following principles can thus be culled out from the decisions of this Court : [i] A statutory functionary exercising a power cannot be said to have delegated his functions merely by deputing a responsible and competent official to enquire and report, as that is the ordinary mode of exercise of any administrative power; [ii] If a statutory authority empowers a delegate to undertake preparatory work, and to take an initial decision in matters entrusted to it, but retains in its own hands the power to approve or disapprove the decision after it has been taken, the decision will be held to have been validly made if the degree of control maintained by the authority is close enough for the decision to be regarded as the authority's own; [iii] Even in cases of sub-delegation, so long as the essential function of decision-making is performed by the delegate, the burden of performing the ancillary and clerical task need not be shouldered by the primary delegate and it is not necessary that the primary delegate himself should perform the ministerial acts as well; and [iv] Practical necessities or exigencies of administration require that the decision-making authority who has been conferred with statutory power, be able to delegate tasks when the situation so requires.

32. In the case in hand, the respondent no. 5 as the Authorised Officer was present throughout the Meeting held on 30.06.2025. He presided over the Meeting and administered oath of affirmation to all the newly elected Ward Members of the Gaon Panchayat. It was thereafter, he conducted the voting process through ballot papers for election of the President of the Gaon Panchayat, at first, when the petitioner and the respondent no. 7 decided to stand for the election after their names were proposed and seconded. When the voting process through ballot papers resulted in a tie due to equality of votes, the Authorised Officer decided to break the tie with the toss of coin. Upto that stage, the Authorised Officer had duly adhered to the procedure laid down in the Assam Panchayat [Constitution] Rules, as amended. The election for the post of Vice-President was also held in the similar manner after it resulted in equality of votes and the tie was broken by tossing of a coin.

33. In the detail Representation submitted by the petitioner on 23.07.2025, the petitioner herself has described the subsequent events, after the voting process resulting in equality of votes, in the following words :-

                   The BDO :

                   * Took out a personal Rs. 1 coin from his pocket,

                   * Invited an unauthorised and unknown individual to conduct the coin toss,

                   * Allowed that person to toss the coin on the ground and declare the result as ‘Tails’,

                   * Declared Muhibur Rahman as President based on this informal lottery,

                   * Repeated the same process for the post of Vice-President, again favouring a candidate from his group.

34. It has been stated that the Secretary of Choudhury Bazar Gaon Panchayat, Sri Yasin Ali, whose name was mentioned in the Order dated 10.06.2025, is a handicapped person. When Sri Yasin Ali submitted an application before the Authorised Officer [the respondent no. 5] to depute an official to assist him in writing the proceedings of the Meeting and other works related to the election for President and Vice-President citing his disability, the Authorised Officer [the respondent no. 5] passed an Order on 23.06.2025 deputing Sri Imran Hussain Sheikh, a Junior Assistant serving in his office to assist Sri Yasin Ali. It was Sri Imran Hussain Sheikh, Junior Assistant, who tossed the coin in presence of the Authorised Officer. As the tossed coin fell with the side assigned to the respondent no. 7, the Authorised Officer declared the respondent no. 7 as elected to the post of President of Gaon Panchayat at that point itself. The election to the post of Vice-President was similarly held. On the same day, that is, on 30.06.2025, the proceedings of the Meeting were drawn up and signed by the Authorised Officer and the Secretary of Choudhury Bazar Gaon Panchayat.

35. A statutory rule is to be treated as a part of a statute. Rules made under a statute must be treated for all purposes of construction or obligation exactly as if they were in the Act, are to be of the same effect as if they are contained in the Act, and are to be judicially noticed for all purposes of construction or obligation [The National Highways Authority of India vs. Pandarinathan Govindarajulu and another, (2021) 6 SCC 693].

36. The Assam Panchayat [Constitution] Rules are framed in exercise of the powers conferred by the Assam Panchayat Act. As per Rule 45[1] of the Assam Panchayat [Constitution] Rules, if after counting of votes, both the candidates receive equal number of votes, the Authorised Officer has to decide the issue of election by tossing up a coin after assigning one side of the coin by him to each of the two candidates before the toss. The rule casts obligation of the Authorised Officer to break the tie by tossing up a coin and for that purpose, there is no requirement on the part of the Authorised Officer to seek consent from the two candidates. In the present case, the essential functions of conducting the election to the posts of President and Vice-President was performed by the Authorised Officer by presiding over and conducting the voting process through ballot papers. When there was a tie, the Authorised Officer also presided over the process of tossing of the coin and declaring the outcome. Allowing the Junior Assistant, deputed by himself vide Order dated 23.06.2025, to toss up the coin in his presence was not an act of subdelegation as mere tossing up of the coin was only a ministerial act. The principle embedded in delegatus non potest delegare would not be attracted in such situation.

37. There is also no requirement on the part of the Authorised Officer to seek consent before allowing another person to toss the coin in his presence and under his direct instruction and supervision. Therefore, there is no requirement to seek consent from the contesting candidates, as contended on behalf of the petitioner, is found of no substance.

38. The decision in Begum Afrooja Perveen [supra] pertained to election to the post of President of a Zilla Parishad in the first meeting. After equality of votes, the coin was tossed up twice. There were belated signing of the minutes of the meeting. The Deputy Commissioner without declaring the results of election referred the matter to the Government for instruction. The Court without entering into the controversy regarding the first toss and the second toss as well as belated signing of the minutes of the meeting, interdicted the process finding illegality in the proceeding due to presence of a Member of Legislative Assembly [MLA] during the meeting and his interference in the course of the proceedings of the meeting by raising objections and the Deputy Commissioner’s seeking of instructions from the Government. The decision in Begum Afrooja Perveen [supra] is not found applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case and the issue arising therefrom.

39. In the Representation submitted by the petitioner on 23.07.2025, it was represented that for electing the Vice-President also, the Authorised Officer allowed a third person to toss up the coin. The submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and in the written arguments that the coin was tossed up by the Authorised Officer himself for electing the Vice-President is found at variance to each other. A party is not permitted to take contradictory stances in a legal proceeding.

40. In the Minutes of the Meeting, held on 30.06.2025 and also prepared on 30.06.2025, there is nothing to indicate that there was any protest lodged by any of the ten Ward Members of the Gaon Panchayat when the Authorised Officer allowed the Junior Assistant to toss up the coin twice – one at the time of electing the President and the other at the time of electing the Vice- President. In the Representation dated 01.07.2025, the Ward Members had complained that the toss was conducted by a one-rupee coin and it was found later that the coin was heavy on one side and it used to fall on the same side. It was urged to change the coin and objection was lodged on that count. However, during the subsequent period, no such point was found to be raised.

41. The issues regarding lack of jurisdiction on the part of the District Judge, Hojai to entertain the writ petition and return of the election petition, though pleaded in the writ petition, have not been argued by the learned counsel for the parties, more particularly, by the learned counsel for the petitioner. As no submission has been made on those issues, no discussion on those issues is necessary.

42. In the light of the above discussion and for the reasons recorded, the writ petition is found to be bereft of any merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. The writ petition is accordingly, dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to cost.