Gauhati High Court
WP(C)/6428/2025 of CHAYNA BEGOM BARBHUIYA AND 3 ORS Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 12 ORS on 27 July 2026
GAHC010241882025 2026:GAU-AS:10480 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/6428/2025 CHAYNA BEGOM BARBHUIYA AND 3 ORS C/O. JIAUR RAHMAN BARBHUIYA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BURIBALI PART-II, P.O. BURIBAIL, DIST. CACHAR, ASSAM, PIN-
GAHC010241882025
2026:GAU-AS:10480
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/6428/2025
CHAYNA BEGOM BARBHUIYA AND 3 ORS
C/O. JIAUR RAHMAN BARBHUIYA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BURIBALI
PART-II, P.O. BURIBAIL, DIST. CACHAR, ASSAM, PIN- 788025.
2: JILI BEGUM BARBHUIYA
C/O- KAMRUL ISLAM BARBHUIYA
R/O- VILL.- UJANGRAM
P.O. NIZJOYNAGAR
DIST. CACHAR
ASSAM
PIN- 788025.
3: SABINA BEGUM BARBHUIYA
C/O- ANCHAR HUSSAIN BARBHUIYA
R/O- VILL.- GANIGRAM PART-IV
P.O. GANIGRAM PART-II
DIST. CACHAR
ASSAM
PIN- 788025.
4: WAHIDA BEGUM BARBHUIYA
W/O- ASFAKUL HAQUE BARBHUIYA
R/O- VILL.- BURIBAIL PART-I
P.O. BURIBAIL
P.S. BORKHOLA
DIST. CACHAR
ASSAM
PIN- 788025
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 12 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, DISPUR,
GUWAHATI-6.
2:THE COMMISSIONER
PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
ASSAM
JURIPAR
PANJABARI
GUWAHATI-37.
3:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
CACHAR
DIST. CACHAR
ASSAM
PPIN- 788001.
4:THE AUTHORISED OFFICER
O/O- DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
CACHAR
1ST MEETING FOR CONSTITUTION OF 93 NO. BURIBAIL GAON
PANCHAYAT UNDER BARKHOLA DEV. BLOCK.
5:THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
CACHAR
ZILA PARISHAD
SILCHAR
DIST. CACHAR
ASSAM
PIN- 788001.
6:THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
BORKHOLA DEVELOPMENT BLOCK
BORKHOLA
PIN- 788110.
7:PARMITA DEV
O/O- DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
CACHAR
DIST. CACHAR
ASSAM
PIN- 788001.
8:ANNAPURNA PAUL
W/O- JOMAK PAUL
VILL.- BURIBALI PART-I
P.O. GONIRGRAM
DIST. CACHAR
ASSAM
PIN- 788025.
9:HAFIZUR RAHMAN LASKAR
S/O- MUZIBUR RAHMAN LASKAR
VILL.- UJANGRAM
P.O. ARUNACHAL
DIST. CACHAR
ASSAM
PIN-788025.
10:ANAWARA BEGUM BARBHUIYA
W/O- ZAMIL AHMED CHOUDHURY
VILL.- GONIRGRAM PART-IV
P.O. GONIRGRAM
DIST. CACHAR. ASSAM
PIN- 788025.
11:SIRAJ UDDIN LASKAR
S/O- LATE AJMOT ALI LASKAR
VILL.- BURIBAIL PART-II
P.O. BURIBAIL
DIST. CACHAR
ASSAM
PIN- 788025.
12:ROUNAK ARA BARBHUIYA
W/O- ABDUL ODUD LASKAR
VILL.- CHANDPUR PART-V
P.O. CHANDPUR
DIST. CACHAR
ASSAM
PIN- 788110.
13:ASMA BEGUM MAZUMDER
W/O- KUTUB UDDIN MAZUMDER
VILL.- UJANGRAM
P.O. NIZ JOYNAGAR
DIST. CACHAR
ASSAM
PIN- 788025
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. S.B. Laskar, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. H. Sarma, Addl. Sr. Govt. Advocate Mr. S. Dutta, Standing Counsel Mr. S.P. Choudhury, Advocate
· Date on which Judgment was reserved : N/A
· Date of Pronouncement of Judgment : 28.07.2026
· Whether the pronouncement is of
the Operative Part of the Judgment : No
· Whether the full Judgment has been
Pronounced : Yes
JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)
Heard Mr. S.B. Laskar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. Mr. S. Dutta, the learned Standing Counsel appears on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1, 2, 5 and 6; Mr. H.
Sarma, the learned Additional Senior Government Advocate appears on behalf of the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and Mr. S.P.
Choudhury, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent Nos. 7 to 13.
2. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the meeting of the newly elected members of 93 No. Buribail Gaon Panchayat under Borkhola Anchalik Panchayat held on 07.07.2025,
on the sole ground that the said meeting was convened and conducted in contravention of Rule 46 of the Assam Panchayat (Constitution) Rules, 1995 (for short, "the Rules of 1995").
3. Taking into account the grievance of the petitioners, and as the case of the petitioners primarily rests on the compliance with Rule 46 of the Rules of 1995, more particularly Sub-Rules (1), (2)
and (3) thereof, the said provisions are reproduced hereinbelow:
“(1) The Deputy Commissioner or the Sub-Divisional Officer as the case may be, shall call the first meeting of a Gaon Panchayat under [clause (b) of sub- section (1) of Section 6] of the Act, 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 concerned at least seven days before the date so fixed. Such meeting shall be preside over by an Officer authorised by the Deputy Commissioner or the Sub-Divisional Officer as the case may be and such Officer shall not be entitled to vote.
(2) The Officer authorised in sub-rule (1) shall administer the oath of affirmation to the [Member] of the Gaon Panchayat as under Section 134 of the Act.
(3) If one third or more of the total number of members called to the meeting under sub-rule (1) are not present within an hour of the time fixed for the meeting, the Deputy Commissioner or the Sub-Divisional Officer as the case may be, or the Officer empowered in this behalf, shall adjourn the meeting pending fixation of another date by the Deputy Commissioner or the Sub- Divisional Officer as the case may be, not later than fifteen days of such
meeting.”
4. From a perusal of the above quoted Sub-Rules of Rule 46 of the Rules of 1995, it would show that the Deputy Commissioner or the Sub-Divisional Officer as the case may be, shall call the first meeting of the Gaon Panchayat under Clause (b) of Sub-Section
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.
(1) of Section 6 of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994, by fixing a date and causing a written notice specifying the date, time, place of the meeting to be served on each elected member of the Gaon Panchayat concerned at least 7 days before the date so fixed. Such meeting is also required to be presided over by an officer authorized by the Deputy Commissioner or the Sub-Divisional Officer as the case may be, and such Officer shall not be entitled to vote. In terms with Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 46 of the Rules of 1995, if one-third or more of the total number of members called to the meeting under Sub-Rule (1) are not present within an hour of the time fixed for the meeting, the Deputy Commissioner or the Sub- Divisional Officer as the case may be, or the officer empowered in this behalf, shall adjourn the meeting pending fixation of another date by the Deputy Commissioner or the Sub-Divisional Officer as the case may be, not later than 15 days of such meeting.
5. In the backdrop of the above, if this Court peruses the Minutes of the Meeting, more particularly the translated version certified by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, it would show that a meeting was convened at 1:00 PM on 07.07.2025. On account of the absence of the Presiding Officer, the meeting was cancelled. Thereupon, pursuant to the direction of the Chief Executive Officer of the Zilla Parishad, one Smt. Parmita Dev was instructed to reconvene the meeting on the same date at 2:00 PM. The Minutes further show that at 2:00 PM on the same day, 6 out of the 10 members were present. It is the case of the petitioners that the remaining 4 members, who are the petitioners herein, did not attend the meeting on account of want of notice that the meeting would be reconvened at 2:00 PM on 07.07.2025. The meeting thereafter proceeded with the 6 members present, and certain resolutions were adopted.
6. Mr. S.B. Laskar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the petitioners were not aware about the reconvening of the meeting on 07.07.2025 itself, inasmuch as the said meeting could only be reconvened by the District Commissioner or the Sub-Divisional Officer, as the case may be, by fixing another date, which shall not be later than 15 days from the date on which the meeting was fixed. The learned counsel, therefore, submitted that the meeting held on 07.07.2025 at 2:00 PM was contrary to Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 46 of the Rules of 1995.
7. This Court, upon perusal of the materials on record, is also of the opinion that the meeting reconvened at 2:00 PM on 07.07.2025, that too, at the direction of the Chief Executive Officer of the Zilla Parishad, was not in consonance with Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 46 of the Rules of 1995. Accordingly, the said meeting dated 07.07.2025, being contrary to Rule 46(3) of the Rules of 1995, cannot be allowed to be sustained.
8. This Court also finds it pertinent to take note of the submissions made by Mr. S. Dutta, the learned Standing Counsel for the P&RD Department as well as Mr. S.P. Choudhury, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the private respondents, who submitted that on account of the petitioners, the meetings could not be held on 27.06.2025 and 02.07.2025. The learned counsels, therefore, submitted that specific directions may be issued so that on the next date, the petitioners cannot raise any grievance that they had no notice about the said meeting.
9. Mr. H. Sarma, the learned Additional Senior Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the District Commissioner, Cachar submitted that this Court may fix a date so that the petitioners, at a later stage, cannot again raise the issue that they had no notice.
10. This Court also takes note of that the elections were held as far back as in the year 2025, and till date, the first meeting of the Gaon Panchayat in question has not been held on account of the inadequacy of the quorum and as such, there is a requirement of passing certain directions in that regard.
11. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands disposed of with the following observations and directions:
(i) The impugned meeting held on 07.07.2025, being in violation of Rule 46 of the Rules of 1995 is set aside and quashed.
(ii) Taking into account that all the members of the Gaon Panchayat in question are represented before this Court and that on behalf of the District Commissioner, Cachar, a submission has been made to the effect that a date and time may be fixed for the meeting, this Court fixes the first meeting of the 93 No. Buribail Gaon Panchayat on 11.08.2026 at 11:00 AM at the office of the Borkhola Anchalik Panchayat.
(iii) The petitioners as well as the private respondents are put to notice about the date, time and place where the meeting would be held.
(iv) This Court further directs the respondent No. 3 to nominate an officer authorized to be present in the said meeting to conduct the business of the meeting.
(v) All other reliefs sought for in the present writ petition stand rejected.
(vi) There shall be no order as to costs.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant Digitally signed by Satyam Sharma Date: 2026.07.29 23:20:09 +05'30'