A Co-District Commissioner lacks jurisdiction to decide Panchayat election disputes under Section 11.

The petitioners and Respondent Nos. 8–11 were elected members of the 5 No. Baruajhar Gaon Panchayat.

At the first meeting convened on 2 July 2025, the petitioners alleged that they proposed Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 for President and Vice-President, while Respondent Nos. 8–11 proposed Respondent Nos. 8 and 9.

According to the petitioners, the authorised officer forcibly removed them from the meeting and subsequently recorded that Respondent Nos. 8 and 9 had been unanimously selected.

In an earlier writ petition, the High Court directed the District Commissioner, Darrang, to decide the petitioners’ representations and appeal on the basis of the statements already recorded, with an opportunity of hearing to the concerned members.

However, the Co-District Commissioner, Dalgaon, passed the speaking order dated 14 May 2026, upholding the election.

1. Whether the Co-District Commissioner had jurisdiction under Section 11 of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994 to decide the dispute concerning the election of the President and Vice-President of the Gaon Panchayat?

2. Whether the speaking order dated 14 May 2026 was legally sustainable, including in light of the alleged procedural irregularities and the failure to consider the petitioners’ objections?

3. What relief should be granted in respect of the disputed election of Respondent Nos. 8 and 9?

Section 11 of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994 confers authority to decide disputes regarding the validity of the election of the Vice-President of a Gaon Panchayat upon the Deputy Commissioner, understood in the present administrative context as the District Commissioner.

Rule 2(g) of the Assam Panchayat (Constitution) Rules, 1995 defines “District Commissioner” as the District Commissioner of the district; the Court held that an administrative notification or office memorandum cannot amend the statute or the Rules to include a Co-District Commissioner within that expression.

Rule 46(5) and (6) prescribe the procedure for conducting the election of the President and Vice-President, while Rule 46(8) governs declaration of the result.

The High Court may exercise its plenary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to mould relief and issue appropriate directions to secure the ends of justice.

The Court held that the Co-District Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to decide the petitioners’ appeal under Section 11 because the statutory power was vested in the District Commissioner and could not be transferred merely through governmental communications.

This defect was aggravated by the earlier judicial direction specifically requiring the District Commissioner to decide the matter, whereas the impugned order was passed by the Co-District Commissioner.

Independently, the Court found that the minutes did not establish unanimous selection: the petitioners’ signatures demonstrated participation in the meeting, but the recording of the election result appeared to have been made after their signatures were obtained.

The immediate objections raised by six of the ten members, followed by the representation and statutory appeal, also cast serious doubt on the alleged unanimous election.

The impugned order failed to address these material objections and was therefore unsustainable for non-consideration of relevant facts and procedural illegality.

Considering the prolonged dispute and the need to preserve democratic functioning of the Panchayat, the Court exercised Article 226 jurisdiction to order a fresh election rather than merely remand the matter for adjudication.

The speaking order dated 14 May 2026 was consequently quashed and set aside.

The District Commissioner, Darrang was directed to appoint an authorised officer and conduct a fresh election for President and Vice-President of the 5 No. Baruajhar Gaon Panchayat in accordance with Rule 46, particularly sub-rules (5) and (6), with the results declared under Rule 46(8).

The election was to be held within 30 days of service of the certified judgment, at the office of the Executive Officer, Bechimari Anchalik Panchayat.

Until the fresh election, all financial decisions of the Gaon Panchayat were to be taken only with the concurrence of the Co-District Commissioner, Dalgaon.