A first Gaon Panchayat meeting cannot be reconvened the same day contrary to Rule 46(3).

The petitioners, elected members of 93 No. Buribail Gaon Panchayat, challenged the meeting held on 7 July 2025 for constitution of the Panchayat.

The meeting was initially scheduled for 1:00 p.m. but was cancelled because the authorised Presiding Officer was absent.

Thereafter, pursuant to the direction of the Chief Executive Officer of the Zilla Parishad, Smt. Parmita Dev reconvened the meeting on the same day at 2:00 p.m.

Six of the ten members attended, while the four petitioners remained absent, allegedly because they had not been served notice of the reconvened meeting.

The meeting proceeded and resolutions were adopted.

The petitioners contended that the reconvening of the meeting on the same day, at the direction of the Chief Executive Officer rather than the Deputy Commissioner or Sub-Divisional Officer, violated Rule 46(3) of the Assam Panchayat (Constitution) Rules, 1995.

The respondents submitted that earlier meetings had also failed because of the petitioners’ absence and sought directions ensuring that the next meeting could not be challenged for want of notice.

1. Whether the meeting of 93 No. Buribail Gaon Panchayat reconvened at 2:00 p.m. on 7 July 2025 was convened and conducted in accordance with Rule 46(3) of the Assam Panchayat (Constitution) Rules, 1995.

2. Whether the Court should issue directions fixing the date, time and place of the fresh first meeting of the Gaon Panchayat and ensuring notice and authorised supervision of that meeting.

The Court applied Rule 46(1) of the Assam Panchayat (Constitution) Rules, 1995, which requires the Deputy Commissioner or Sub-Divisional Officer to call the first meeting of a Gaon Panchayat by written notice served on every elected member at least seven days in advance, with the meeting presided over by an officer authorised by the Deputy Commissioner or Sub-Divisional Officer.

Rule 46(2) requires the authorised officer to administer the oath or affirmation to the members.

Rule 46(3) provides that where the prescribed attendance requirement is not fulfilled within one hour of the scheduled time, the Deputy Commissioner, Sub-Divisional Officer or officer empowered in that behalf must adjourn the meeting, pending fixation of another date by the competent authority within fifteen days.

The Court also proceeded on the basis of the statutory framework under Section 6(1)(b) and Section 134 of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994, referred to in Rule 46.

The Court found that the 1:00 p.m. meeting was cancelled due to the absence of the Presiding Officer and that the subsequent 2:00 p.m. meeting was convened pursuant to the direction of the Chief Executive Officer of the Zilla Parishad.

Rule 46(3), however, contemplated adjournment and fixation of another date by the Deputy Commissioner or Sub-Divisional Officer, or by an officer duly empowered for that purpose, rather than immediate reconvening on the same day by the Chief Executive Officer.

Further, the petitioners had not received notice of the 2:00 p.m. meeting.

The Court therefore held that the reconvened meeting did not comply with the statutory procedure prescribed by Rule 46(3) and could not be sustained.

Since the first meeting had remained pending for a considerable period after the 2025 elections, the Court considered it necessary to fix a fresh meeting date and issue directions concerning notice and authorised supervision.

It fixed 11 August 2026 at 11:00 a.m. as the date and time for the first meeting of 93 No. Buribail Gaon Panchayat at the office of the Borkhola Anchalik Panchayat.

The petitioners and private respondents were treated as having notice of the meeting, and the District Commissioner, Cachar, was directed to nominate an authorised officer to attend and conduct the proceedings.

All other reliefs were rejected, with no order as to costs.