Mazibar Rahman vs The State Of Assam & Ors.

Heard Mr. M. Ahmed, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner. Mr. S. Dutta, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the P&RD Department.

It is contended before this Court that the issue involved in the present writ petition is covered by the judgment and order dated 23.02.2026 in the case of Aysha Khatun vs. State of Assam and 5 Others, reported in (2026) 3 GLT 102.

For deciding as to whether the issue involved in the present writ petitions is covered by the judgment and order dated 23.02.2026 in the case of Aysha Khatun (supra), this Court finds it relevant to take note of the brief facts which led to the filing of the writ petition under consideration.

The Petitioner herein pursuant to a Notification dated 03.04.2025 issued by the Assam State Election Commission for election to the post of Ward Member of Ward No.7 (Borguli) of Lalpool Gaon Panchayat under Bechimari Zila Parishad submitted nomination. The Respondent No.8 also submitted nomination for the election to the post of Ward Member of Ward No.7 (Borguli) of Lalpool Gaon Panchayat. The election was held on 07.05.2025. In the said election, the Petitioner was defeated and the Respondent No.8 was elected as Ward Member. The result was declared on 14.05.2025. It is the allegation of the Petitioner that the Respondent No.8 was not eligible for contesting the election for being barred by disqualification under Sub-Section 2(f) of Section 111 of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994 as his spouse was underage at the time of marriage.

This Court vide an order dated 27.02.2026 issued notice.

From a perusal of the records, it would show that the writ petition was filed by the Petitioner challenging the election of the returned candidate on account of pre-existing disqualification at the time of submission of the nomination paper during the Panchayat Election, 2025. The grievance of the Petitioner in the present writ petition was the inaction on the part of the District Commissioner to act upon the representation and initiate disqualification proceedings against the returned candidate, i.e. the Respondent No.7.

This Court had in the case of Aysha Khatun (supra) decided that a candidate who had incurred disqualification at the time of the election, i.e. submission of the nomination paper, but the nomination paper having been accepted would be a case of improper acceptance of the nomination. The improper acceptance of the nomination being a part of the election process can only be challenged by way of an election petition before the Election Tribunal within the period of 60 days from the date of declaration of the result. This Court further held that the District Commissioner had no authority or jurisdiction to decide a disqualification which was there at the time of election, i.e. submission of the nomination paper.

Taking into account the law laid down in the case of Aysha Khatun (supra), the proceedings initiated by the Petitioner before the District Commissioner is nonest and the District Commissioner had rightly not taken any action.

Accordingly this Court does not find any merit in the present proceedings for which the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.