GUWAHATI, India, Aug. 21 -- Gauhati High Court issued the following order on July 21:

1. Heard Mr. T. J. Mahanta, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. H. A. Ahmed, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. Also heard Mr. S. Dutta, learned Standing Counsel, P & RD, representing the respondent nos. 1 & 4 and Mr. N. Goswami, learned counsel representing the respondent nos. 2 & 3 as well as Mr. R. Dubey, learned Standing Counsel, State Election Commission, representing the respondent nos. 5 & 6.

2. In view of the nature of the order that is proposed to be passed today, notice upon the respondent no. 7 is not deemed necessary.

3. The petitioners, by way of instituting the present proceeding have assailed the election of the respondent no. 7 as the President of 91 No. Agmandia Jadavpur Gaon Panchayat.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that there being names of 2(two) candidates proposed for the post of President i.e. the petitioner no. 1 and the respondent no. 7, the house resolved to have an election in the matter. On conclusion of the election process, it was found that both the petitioner no. 1 and the respondent no. 7 had secured 05 votes each, however, after the counting of the said votes, the authorized officer had rejected the vote cast by the petitioner no. 2 in favour of the petitioner no. 1, by presuming that he had clicked the picture of the ballot paper while casting his vote and holding that the secrecy required to be maintained in an election process was vitiated.

5. Mr. Mahanta, learned counsel has submitted that sub-rule (7) of Rule 46 of the Assam Panchayat (Constitution) Rules, 1995, provides the ground under which a ballot paper can be held to be invalid and he submits that the grounds assigned for holding the ballot cast by the petitioner no. 2 to be invalid, is not a ground so assigned under the provisions of sub-rule (7) of Rule 46 of the said Rules of 1995 and accordingly, the cancellation of the vote cast by the petitioner no. 2 would mandate an interference from this Court.

6. The learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the dispute raised in the present proceeding being one pertaining to the election of the President of the Gaon Panchayat concerned, the provisions of Section 11 of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994, mandates that such dispute is required to be decided by the jurisdictional District Commissioner.

7. In view of the statutory prescription made for resolving a dispute pertaining to the election to the post of President of a Gaon Panchayat in the provisions of the Act of 1994, this Court without entering into the merits of the submissions made by the petitioner herein, requires the petitioner to approach the jurisdictional District Commissioner, Assam, by way of submitting a representation assailing the election of the respondent no. 8 as the President of 91 No. Agmandia Jadavpur Gaon Panchayat, within a period of 7(seven) days from today.

8. On receipt of such representation from the petitioner, the jurisdictional District Commissioner shall schedule a date of hearing in the matter and issue notices to the petitioner, respondent no. 7 and other stakeholders involved in the matter. Thereafter, the jurisdictional District Commissioner, upon hearing the parties to the proceeding and also on receiving evidences as may be adduced by the parties, shall pass orders with regard to the grievance raised by the petitioner in the representation now required to be filed by the petitioner.

9. The petitioner shall file the said representation before the jurisdictional District Commissioner along with a certified copy of this order.

10. The jurisdictional District Commissioner shall thereafter, dispose of the said representation in the manner indicated herein above, within a period of 30(thirty) days thereafter.

11. With the above observations and directions, the present writ petition stands disposed of.

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.