Guwahati: The Gauhati High Court has set aside an order passed by the District Commissioner (DC) of Biswanath that cancelled the election of a Gaon Panchayat President. The Court ruled that the meeting held for the election was valid as it met the "one-third" quorum requirement mandated by law.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi observed that cancelling an election result without giving the elected candidate a chance to be heard is a "gross violation of the principles of natural justice."

The case pertains to the 14 No. Ghiladhari Mukh Gaon Panchayat in Biswanath District, Assam. Following the Panchayat elections in May 2025, the first meeting of the newly elected members was convened on June 27, 2025.

During this meeting, six elected members were present. Out of these six, the petitioner, Burhan Ali, was elected as the President, and another member was elected as the Vice President.

However, four other members (Respondent Nos. 8, 9, 10, and 11) were dissatisfied. They submitted a representation to the District Commissioner on July 4, 2025, claiming that the meeting was illegal because the "quorum" was not fulfilled. According to their interpretation, at least seven members should have been present to make the meeting valid.

Initially, when the DC did not act on the complaint, the disgruntled members approached the High Court. The Court, in an earlier petition, noted that the DC was free to dispose of the representation.

Basing his decision on this, the District Commissioner of Biswanath passed an order on September 10, 2025, cancelling the entire first meeting on the grounds of "lack of quorum." This order effectively stripped Burhan Ali of his presidency, leading him to challenge the DC's decision in the current writ petition.

Advocate P.P. Dutta, appearing for the petitioner (Burhan Ali), raised two primary arguments:

Natural Justice: The DC passed the order behind the petitioner's back. The petitioner was never given a notice or an opportunity to explain why his election was valid before it was cancelled.
Wrong Interpretation of Law: The DC misinterpreted Rule 46(3) of the Assam Panchayat (Constitution) Rules, 1995. The rule requires only 1/3rd of the members to be present for a quorum. Since 6 members out of the total were present, the quorum was legally complete.

On the other hand, the respondents argued that the law implies that if more than 1/3rd of members are absent, the meeting cannot be held. They suggested that no "prejudice" was caused because the petitioner could simply contest again in a fresh meeting.

The Court examined the legal provisions in detail, specifically Section 18 of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994, and Rule 46(3) of the 1995 Rules.

1. On Natural Justice The Court noted that the DC's decision-making process was flawed. Even though the High Court had previously allowed the DC to decide on the representation, it did not mean the DC could ignore the basic right of the petitioner to be heard. "It was imperative for the adjudicating authority to give a proper opportunity to the aggrieved party which admittedly was not done," Justice Medhi observed.

2. On Quorum Requirements The heart of the dispute was whether 6 members out of the total elected body were enough to hold the first meeting.

The Court pointed out that under Rule 46(3), a meeting must be adjourned only if less than one-third of the total members are present. In this case, it was undisputed that 6 members attended. The Court held that 6 members clearly fulfilled the "one-third" requirement.

The Judge further noted that following an amendment in 2023, Panchayat Presidents are now elected by the Ward members themselves rather than by a direct public vote. Therefore, the rules regarding the "first meeting" must be strictly followed to ensure the democratic process within the Panchayat is not stalled.

Finding the District Commissioner’s order "unsustainable in law," the High Court quashed the order dated September 10, 2025.

The Court directed that Burhan Ali be allowed to function as the President of the 14 No. Ghiladhari Mukh Gaon Panchayat for his full legal tenure.

Case Title: Burhan Ali v. The State of Assam & 15 Ors.
Case No: WP(C)/5918/2025 Judgment Date: December 8, 2025
Neutral Citation: 2025:GAU-AS:XXXXX