Gauhati High Court
Review.Pet./112/2026 of DILARA BEGUM LASKAR Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS. on 30 July 2026
GAHC010144512026 2026:GAU-AS:10611 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Review.Pet./112/2026 DILARA BEGUM LASKAR WIFE OF MUKTAR HUSSAIN LASKAR, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- DAKSHIN MOHANPUR PART-X, P.O.-DAKSHIN MOHANPUR, P.S.- SONAI, DISTRICT-
GAHC010144512026
2026:GAU-AS:10611
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Review.Pet./112/2026
DILARA BEGUM LASKAR
WIFE OF MUKTAR HUSSAIN LASKAR, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- DAKSHIN
MOHANPUR PART-X, P.O.-DAKSHIN MOHANPUR, P.S.- SONAI, DISTRICT- CACHAR, ASSAM, PIN- 788119
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS.
REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI, PIN-781006
2:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
CACHAR
P.O. AND P.S.- SILCHAR
DISTRICT- CACHAR ASSAM
PIN- 788001
3:THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
CACHAR ZILLA PARISHAD
P.O. AND P.S.- SILCHAR
DISTRICT- CACHAR ASSAM
PIN- 788001
4:THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
SONAI DEVELOPMENT BLOCK
P.O. AND P.S. -SONAI
DISTRICT- CACHAR ASSAM
PIN- 788119
5:THE SECRETARY
128 NO SWADHIN BAZAR GAON PANCHAYAT
P.O- DAKSHIN MOHANPUR
P.S.- SONAI
DISTRICT- CACHAR ASSAM
PIN- 78811
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. M. K. Hussain, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Ms. M. Barman, Jr. GA, Assam : Mr. S. Dutta, SC, P&RD
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
Date : 31.07.2026
This is an application for review of the order dated 13.02.2026 passed in WP(C) No.738/2026 whereby this Court had set aside the Speaking Order dated 10.12.2025 on the ground that the Speaking Order dated 10.12.2025 was not passed by giving the Petitioner an opportunity of hearing and directed the District Commissioner, Cachar to pass a Speaking Order as permissible under the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994 (for short ‘the Act of 1994’) as well as the Rules framed thereinunder by giving an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner.
2. The Petitioner herein has sought for review of the said order dated 13.02.2026 passed in WP(C) No.738/2026 on the ground that subsequent to the said order, this Court in the judgment rendered in the case of Ayesha Khatun Vs. State of Assam & 5 Others reported in 2026 (3) GLT 102 held that in respect to disqualification which stood prior to submission of the nomination paper, the District Commissioner would have no jurisdiction in terms with Section 111(2) of the Act of 1994 to disqualify an elected Panchayat Member.
3. This Court duly takes note of the settled principles of law that a subsequent decision would not render the order passed earlier, an error apparent on the face of the record to exercise the review jurisdiction. Under such circumstances, it is the opinion of this Court that this is not a fit case for exercising the review jurisdiction.
4. Be that as it may, this Court for the sake of clarity observes that in the order dated 13.02.2026 passed in WP(C) No.738/2026, this Court had categorically directed the District Commissioner, Cachar to pass a Speaking Order as permissible under the Act of 1994 as well as the Rules framed therein under. Under such circumstances, the interpretation so given to Section 111 of the Act of 1994 read with Rule 62 of the Assam Panchayat (Constitution) Rules, 1995 (for short ‘the Rules of 1995’) in the case of Ayesha Khatun (supra) has to be duly taken note of by the District Commissioner, Cachar while passing the Speaking Order.
5. At the cost of repetition, it is pertinent to observe that in the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Ayesha Khatun (supra), this Court had categorically held that the District Commissioner does not have the jurisdiction to exercise the powers under Section 111(2) of the Act of 1994 read with Rule 62 of the Rules of 1995 in respect to a pre-existing disqualification prior to the submission of the nomination paper. This aspect the District Commissioner, Cachar shall duly take note of while passing the Speaking Order.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant