Six Members In First Meeting Meet Quorum For Electing Village Council President Under Assam Panchayat Rules: Gauhati High Court
Sanchayita Lahkar
The Gauhati High Court Single Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi set aside the District Commissioner, Biswanath’s order cancelling the first meeting of a Gaon Panchayat held to elect its President and restored the petitioner’s election to the post. The Court held that, after the 2023 amendment to the Assam Panchayat law shifting the mode of electing the President to elected ward members, the quorum requirement in Rule 46(3) must be applied accordingly, and six members satisfied the minimum attendance needed for the first meeting. Consequently, it directed that the petitioner be permitted to continue functioning as President for the statutory tenure.
The dispute arose from a complaint by certain ward members that the meeting could not validly proceed because quorum was not met, as only six elected ward members attended. Subsequently, respondent nos. 8, 9, 10 and 11 submitted a representation before the District Commissioner contending that the quorum was not fulfilled and asserting that seven members ought to have been present. As the representation was not disposed of, they instituted a writ petition. During its pendency, an observation was made that the pendency would not bar disposal of the representation. Thereafter, the impugned order cancelling the first meeting was passed on the ground of lack of quorum.
Also Read: Alleged Forged Arbitration Agreement Renders Dispute Non-Arbitrable; Supreme Court
The petitioner challenged the order on grounds of violation of principles of natural justice and misinterpretation of Rule 46(3) of the Assam Panchayat (Constitution) Rules, 1995, and also referred to Section 18 of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994.
On the factual aspect, the Court recorded, “there is no dispute on the factual aspect that in the meeting held on 27.06.2025, 6 numbers of elected Ward members were present.”
Regarding the first ground of challenge, the Court observed, “the question will arise as to whether such representation could have been disposed of without giving the petitioner an opportunity.” It further recorded, “Though the observation that there would be no bar for disposal of the representation was made by this Court, it was imperative for the adjudicating authority to give a proper opportunity to the aggrieved party which admittedly was not done.”
The Court stated, “In the considered opinion of this Court, there has been gross violation of the principles of natural justice as rights which had accrued to the petitioner vide the meeting held on 27.06.2025 has been taken away without giving any opportunity.”
While examining Rule 46(3), the Court reproduced the provision: “If one third or more of the total number of members called to the meeting under sub-rule (1) are not present within an hour of the time fixed for the meeting, the Deputy Commissioner or the Sub-Divisional Officer as the case may be, or the Officer empowered in this behalf, shall adjourn the meeting pending fixation of another date by the Deputy Commissioner or the Sub-Divisional Officer as the case may be, not later than fifteen days of such meeting.”
The Court stated, “Even if it is assumed that Section 18 of the Act may not have an application in the adjudication of the present case, Rule 46 (3) quoted above is itself sufficient to govern the 1st meeting of a Gaon Panchayat.” It further recorded, “The interpretation sought to be advanced on behalf of the respondent nos. 8 to 11 cannot be construed to be a correct interpretation and cannot be said to be in sync with the scheme of the statute.”
On quorum, the Court stated, “presence of 6 members would definitely fulfil the quorum as required under Rule 46 (3), even if, the aspect of Section 18 is overlooked.”
Finally, the Court observed, “This Court is therefore of the opinion that the view taken by the District Commissioner, as reflected in the impugned order dated 10.09.2025 is unsustainable in law and the same is accordingly set aside and quashed.”
The Court ordered that “the view taken by the District Commissioner, as reflected in the impugned order dated 10.09.2025 is unsustainable in law and the same is accordingly set aside and quashed.”
“Consequently, it is directed that the petitioner be allowed to function as the President of the concerned 14 No. Ghiladhari Mukh Gaon Panchayat in accordance with law and for the tenure prescribed in the statute. Writ petition accordingly stands allowed.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Shri P.P. Dutta, Advocate
For the Respondents: Shri H. Sharma, Addl. Senior Government Advocate, Assam; Ms. P. Thapa, Advocate appearing on instructions of Shri S. Dutta, Standing Counsel, P&RD; Shri M.K. Hussain, Advocate; Shri A.M. Ahmed, Advocate; Shri A. Bhattacharjee, Advocate
Case Title: Burhan Ali v. State of Assam and 15 Ors.
Neutral Citation: GAHC010228552025
Case Number: WP(C)/5918/2025
Bench: Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi
