GAUHATI HIGH COURT ISSUES ORDER FOR FATEHA KHATUN V/S THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS

GUWAHATI, India, Sept. 8 -- Gauhati High Court issued the following order on Aug. 8:

1. Heard Mr. MI Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. N Goswami, learned State counsel and Mr. K Konwar, learned Additional Advocate General representing the P&RD Department.

2. As agreed to by the learned counsels for the parties and taking note of the issues raised, the matter is taken up for final disposal at the motion stage.

3. Issue notice, returnable forthwith.

4. By the present application, the petitioner has assailed annexure 6 and order dated 19.07.2025, more particularly, order under No.GDG.58/P.Election/2025/Pt/80 whereby the petitioner, an elected Gaon Panchayat Member of 10 No. Chalakura Gaon Panchayat under 12 No. Kalshabhanga Rowkhowa Gaon Panchayat has been removed by the Deputy Commissioner as Gaon Panchayat Member in exercise of power under Section 111(2)(a) of the Assam Panchayat (Amendment) Act, 2018 read with Rule 62(1)(b) of the Assam Panchayat (Constitution) Rules, 1995.

5. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was elected as Member of the aforesaid Gaon Panchayat in the last Panchayat Election, however, based on a complaint lodged by the defeated candidate alleging that the petitioner was having four children on the date of filing nomination, the Deputy Commissioner disqualified the petitioner without adherence of procedure laid down under the Assam Panchayat (as amended up to date) Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as Act, 1994) and the Assam Panchayat (Constitution) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as Rules, 1995) and without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. While taking the decision, the petitioner was not even allowed to place her case before the authorities inasmuch as it is the case of the petitioner that the four children were born prior to the cut of date i.e. 19.03.2018. According to the petitioner, had an opportunity been granted to the petitioner, she could have established that she cannot be disqualified for the ground of having four children in term of the mandate of the Act, 1994.

6. The learned State counsel representing the parties submits that the impugned order was based on an enquiry conducted by the Deputy Commissioner in term of the provision of the Act, 1994 and the Rules, 1995 and there is no prescription of giving any opportunity of hearing under the Act, 1994 or the Rules, 1995. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Deputy Commissioner has committed error in deciding the matter based on the enquiry report and by not hearing the petitioner.

7. I have given anxious consideration to the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.

8. Section 111(2) of the Act, 1994 outlines the conditions and procedure for disqualification of Panchayat Members, primarily on the ground of having more than two living children from a single or multiple parents, subject to the condition that, such disqualification shall not be applicable in respect those persons, who have more than two children prior to date of commencement of this Act, 1994.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=A9S7c5LDIsB6RXaCf816x%2BLjjRiOhUr3JkeNHIjFE%2FYLyBfZG1a1JXkDqj9CQngV&caseno=WP(C)/4492/2025&cCode=1&cino=GAHC010176452025&state_code=6&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.