WP(C)/822/2026 of MRS. FIRDOUSI BEGUM CHOUHDHURY Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS on 16 June 2026

ORDER

17.06.2026

Heard Mr. S. Sarkar, learned counsel for the petitioner; Ms. P. Thapa, learned counsel on behalf of Mr. S. Dutta, learned Standing Counsel, Panchayat & Rural Development Department for the respondent nos. 1, 2 & 4; and Mr. S.S. Roy, learned Junior Government Advocate, Assam for the respondent no. 3.

2. The petitioner has stated that in the recent General Panchayat Election, she got elected as a Ward Member of 9 No. Lamajuar Gaon Panchayat and pursuant to a Resolution taken in a Meeting of the Gaon Panchayat, held on 22.07.2025, the petitioner was declared elected as President of the Gaon Panchayat.

3. The petitioner has stated that the writ petition is filed in a representative capacity on behalf of the entire population of the Gaon Panchayat to agitate the issue of apparent discrimination in allocation of funds, which should be proportionate to the entitled population and to assail the arbitrary action on the part of the respondents. The petitioner has espoused that same has resulted in deprivation of a large nos. of population from the entitled Government benefits. The petitioner has stated that she is compelled to approach this Court invoking the extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution as the representations submitted by the petitioner did not receive any response from the respondent authorities.

4. One of the Representations enclosed with the writ petition is at Annexure-2. In the said Representation submitted by the Representationists which included the petitioner before the respondent no. 2, some data on population was presented for the 9 No. Lamajuar Gaon Panchayat to canvass that as a direct result of delimitation process, a major portion of Lamajuar Gaon Panchayat’s population have been unjustly transferred to the other Gaon Panchayats and the same has caused the beneficiaries of key schemes such as MGNREGA, PMAY and others to be redirected away, leading to widespread deprivation, potential administrative chaos and erosion of trust in the delimitation process. The unfair situation created by the delimitation process has not only hampered the holistic development of the Gaon Panchayat but also has given rise to risks of social unrest among affected residents, who voted and elected the Ward Members including the petitioner as the President of the Gaon Panchayat, based on ‘original’ boundaries of Lamajuar Gaon Panchayat. In the Representation, the representationists including the petitioner, had represented that the population pattern of Lamajuar Gaon Panchayat be rectified and restored immediately in the interest of justice, equity and adherence to the post-delimitation voter list and failure to act could result in irreversible harm to thousands of families. The representationists had sought for conducting an investigation and issue corrective orders.

5. In a batch of writ petitions including a writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 5346/2024, the delimitation process undertaken by the State respondents for delimitation of Panchayats was challenged. By a Judgment and Order dated 24.04.2025 passed in the said batch of writ petitions, this Court had upheld the process of delimitation of Panchayats. The Delimitation Order had been published in the Official Gazette. The issue of infringement of the rights of the petitioners associated with the delimitation process of Gaon Panchayats, Anchalik Panchayats and Zilla Parishads were examined and the contentions regarding the petitioners’ rights associated with the delimitation process of Panchayats were found unsustainable.

6. The projections on behalf of the petitioner having been examined by this Court, are found to be misconceived and frivolous. The petitioner is found to have criticized the delimitation process and has canvassed about the erosion of trust in the delimitation process raising an issue of giving rise to risks of social unrest among residents affected by the delimitation process. Noticeably, the writ petitioner is also espousing the cause of non-voters, who have adequate remedy in law if they are aggrieved by non-inclusion of their names in the concerned electoral rolls and such remedy is to be sought individually, not in a writ petition, through the representation of a person like the petitioner herein in representative capacity.

7. As the writ petition is found to be misconceived and frivolous, the writ petition is dismissed with a cost of Rs. 10,000/-, which amount is to be deposited by the petitioner before the Registry of this Court within a period of 10 [ten] days from today. On deposit of the amount the Registry is to transfer the said amount to the Gauhati High Court Bar Association to enable the Association to spend the said amount for its benevolent activity.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant