Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 688 (GAU)

Nagendra Nath Chutia v. State of Assam

2008-09-12

I.A.ANSARI

body2008
JUDGMENT I.A. Ansari, J. 1. The facts, which are material for effective disposal of the present writ petition, may, in brief, be set out as under: (i) The Dhemaji Zilla Parishad consists of 7 elected members. The Petitioner was elected to Dhemaji Zilla Parishad, as a member thereof, from No. 4 Sissiborgaon Zilla Parishad constituency, in the Panchayat elections, held in the months of December, 2007 and January 2008. Pursuant to a WT Message, dated 3.2.2008, issued by the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, Panchayat and Rural Development Department, the 'first, meeting' of Dhemaji Zilla Parishad was decided to be held, on 20.3.2008, at the office of the said Zilla Parishad. An order was accordingly published, on 7.3.2008, by the Deputy Commissioner, Dhemaji, scheduling the 'first meeting' of Dhemaji Zilla Parishad, on 20.3.2008, at 10 AM, at the office of the said Zilla Parishad, with Shri B.N. Doley, Chief Executive Officer, Dhemaji Zilla Parishad, having been empowered to conduct the said meeting for the purpose of constitution of the said Zilla Parishad. On the scheduled date, i.e., 20.3.2008, the Chief Executive Officer, Dhemaji Zilla Parishad, chaired the 'first meeting' of the said Zilla Parishad in his capacity as the authorized officer. In terms of the scheme of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994, ('the said Act') and the Assam Panchayat (Constitution) Rules, 1995, ('the said Rules') the elected members of Dhemaji Zilla Parishad took oath of the office from the authorized officer. Before the oath was so administered, Shri Bholanath Doley, while welcoming the members of the Zilla Parishad, explained to them the rules for election to the office of the President and also to the office the Vice-President under the said Act and the Rules making it clear to the members present there that the President and Vice-President of the Zilla Parishad would be elected from amongst the elected members of the Zilla Parishad. (ii) After the oath ceremony of the newly elected members of the said Zilla Parishad was over, when the authorized officer requested the members, present in the meeting, to mention the name of the person whom they proposed to elect as President of the said Zilla Parishad, Sri Deba Gogoi, a member of the said Zilla Parishad, proposed the name of Sri Deben Dutta, another member of the said Zilla Parishad, for the office of the President of the said Zilla Parishad and Smt. Amarawati Gohain, another member of the said Zilla Parishad, supported the said proposal. Immediately thereafter, Sri Atul Pegu, another member of the said Zilla Parishad, proposed the name of Sri Nagendra Nath Chutia, (i.e., the present Petitioner), for the office of the President of the said Zilla Parishad and his candidature was supported by Smt. Suniti Basumatary, a member of the said Zilla Parishad. As the names of two elected members of the said Zilla Parishad were proposed and supported for the office of the President of the said Zilla Parishad, the authorized officer made arrangements for holding election to the office of the President of the said Zilla Parishad and conducted, accordingly, the election. In the voting, which so took place, the newly elected seven members of the said Panchayat had cast their votes. The counting of the votes revealed that that the present Petitioner, Sri Nagendra Nath Chutia, had received as many as four votes; whereas Sri Deben Dutta had received three votes. This was followed by a declaration made by the authorized officer that the present Petitioner, namely, Sri Nagendra Nath Chutia, stood elected to the office of the President of the said Zilla Parishad. (iii) What transpired in the said meeting after the declaration of the result of the present Petitioner, as President of the said Zilla Parishad, are reflected in the minutes of the proceeding of the said Zilla Parishad held on 20.3.2009. (iii) What transpired in the said meeting after the declaration of the result of the present Petitioner, as President of the said Zilla Parishad, are reflected in the minutes of the proceeding of the said Zilla Parishad held on 20.3.2009. For the sake of clarity, the relevant portion of the minutes of the proceeding as to what transpired after the declaration of the result of the election to the office of the President of the said Zilla Parishad is reproduced below: DHEMAJIZILLAPARISHAD Swearing in Ceremony: Venue: Conference Hall of Dhemaji Zilla Parishad Date: 20.3.2008 Today, on 20.3.2008, the sitting of the first meeting of the Dhemaji Zilla Parishad for election of President and Vice-President took place in conference Hall of Dhemaji Zilla Parishad. The meeting was conducted by the Chief Executive Officer of Dhemaji Zilla Parishad Sri Bholanath Doley as the authorized officer in presence of undersigned members. Sri Bholanath Doley while narrating the purpose of the meeting welcomed all the members present in the meeting and also explained the relevant rule for election of President and Vice-President under the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994 and Assam Panchayat Rules, 1995. In case of election of President and Vice-President of Zilla Parishad, election will be made from the elected members of the Zilla Parishad and only those members will have the right to vote further, one elected member of Zilla Parishad will be allowed to contest for one post and the consent of the proposed and supported candidate should have its own consent. Thereafter, as per the request of the authorized officer the elected members of the different constituency of Dhemaji Zilla Parishad introduced themselves individually. After introduction the authorized official conducted the oath taking of newly elected members of the Dhemaji Zilla Parishad. After taking the oath he requested members present of the Zilla Parishad to propose and support the candidate for the post of President. After introduction the authorized official conducted the oath taking of newly elected members of the Dhemaji Zilla Parishad. After taking the oath he requested members present of the Zilla Parishad to propose and support the candidate for the post of President. As per the request of the authorized officer the member of the Dhemaji Zilla Parishad Sri Deba Gogoi proposed the name of Sri Deben Dutta, member of the Dhemaji Zilla Parishad for the post of President and another member of Zilla Parishad Smt. Amarawati Borgohain supported the said proposal and immediately another member of the Zilla Parishad Sri Atul Pegu proposed the name of Sri Nagendra Nath Chutia for the post of President and Smt. Suniti Basumatari members of the Zilla Parishad supported the said proposal. There having been two names proposed and supported for the post of Dhemaji Zilla Parishad, the authorized officer made arrangement for secret voting. In the said voting process, the 7 newly elected members of the Dhemaji Zilla Parishad had cast their secret votes. After counting of votes Sri Nagendra Nath Chutia obtained 4 votes and Deben Dutta received 3 votes. Accordingly Sri Nagendra Nath Chutia was declared by the authorized officer as elected President of Dhemaji Zilla Parishad. After completion of the election of the President the authorized officer informed that the post of Vice-President is reserved for Scheduled Tribe woman and requested them to propose candidates from Scheduled Caste woman. Accordingly, the member of Dhemaji Zilla Parishad Shri Nagendra Nath Chutia proposed the name of Smt. Suniti Basumatary for the post of Vice-President thereafter another member of the Dhemaji Zilla Parishad Smt. Amarawati Borgohain proposed the name of Smt. Kamalabati Doley Pegu, member of Dhemaji Zilla Parishad for the post of Vice-President and Deba Gogoi, member of the Dhemaji Zilla Parishad supported. When the authorized officer asked Smt. Kamalawati Doley Pegu whether she has consent or not, for the post of Vice-President, she remained silent for long time. When the authorized officer asked Smt. Kamalawati Doley Pegu whether she has consent or not, for the post of Vice-President, she remained silent for long time. The authorized officer having repeatedly sought her opinion Smt. Kamalawai Doley Pegu gave her consent to be a candidate for the post of Vice-President Immediately after the expression of consent by Smt. Kamalawati Doley Pegu, the member of the Dhemaji Zilla Parishad, Member of Jonai Legislative Assembly Sri Bhuban Pegu, who was present in the meeting, went to Smt Kamalawati Doley Pegu and saying "come outside we have a talk" tried to drag her out by holding her hand pandemonium broke out in the meeting and there having been chaos the MLA of the Jonai Legislative Assembly Sri Bhuben Pegu left the conference hall. The majority of the members present in the meeting condemned the actions of the MLA and alleged that both Smt. Kamalawati Doley Pegu and Smt. Suniti Basumatary were forced to vote for one party for the post of the President, of the Dhemaji Zilla Parishad. When Smt. Suniti Basumatary was asked about the allegation, she stated that she had received threat in respect of voting for election of the President and that the election to the post of President was not transparent. Smt. Suniti Basumatary though had accepted the proposal and support for the post of Vice-President but at last she refused the said proposal and support. Smt. Kamalawati Doley Pegu also refused to accept the post of the Vice-President and observed the re-election for the post of President, Zilla Parishad should be held. Immediately thereafter the situation became more complex and chaotic with heated exchange of words between the members present in the meeting. After hearing the versions of the candidates who have refused the post of Vice-President the majority of the elected members and the meeting held that the process of election for the post of President was not transparent and resolved for re-election. Accordingly the authorized officer adjourned the meeting and informed the members present in the meeting that he has requested the Deputy Commissioner, Dhemaji, to fix the date, place and time of the next meeting and while offering vote of thanks the authorized officer declared the meeting to be ended. Accordingly the authorized officer adjourned the meeting and informed the members present in the meeting that he has requested the Deputy Commissioner, Dhemaji, to fix the date, place and time of the next meeting and while offering vote of thanks the authorized officer declared the meeting to be ended. (iv) As the minutes of the proceedings of the 'first meeting' of the Zilla Parishad, held on 20.03.2008, reproduced herein-above, reflect, the Authorised Officer submitted a report, dated 20.3.2008, to the Deputy Commissioner, Dhemaji, as regard what had transpired in the 'first meeting'. This was followed by an order, dated 20.3.2008 issued by the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Dhemaji cancelling the proceedings of the said 'first meeting' of the Zilla Parishad so far as the same relate to the elections of the President and Vice-President with further direction to hold the election to the offices of the President and Vice-President, Dhemaji Zilla Parishad, on 24.3.2008, This order reads as under: GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER: DHEMAJI DISTRICT: DHEMAJI No. DCL 10/2008/40 Dated, Dhemaji the 20th March, 2008 ORDER Whereas, the date of the first meeting of Zilla Parishad, Dhemaji was fixed on 20th March, 2008 and the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Dhemaji was authorized to preside over the meeting for Oath taking and Election of President and Vice-President of Zilla Parishad, Dhemaji vide letter No. DPE-52/2008/8 dated 7.3.2008. Perused the petition submitted by Shri Deba Gogoi, Shri Deban Dutta, Smt. Aamrawati Dihingia, Smti. Suniti Basumatary and Smt. Kamalwati Doley Pegu, members of Zilla Parishad and also perused the report on the first meeting of Dhemaji Zilla Parishad submitted by Shri B.N. Doley, ACS, Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Dhemaji, vide letter No. DZP-203/2005-06/1570 dated 20.3.2008. Perused the petition submitted by Shri Deba Gogoi, Shri Deban Dutta, Smt. Aamrawati Dihingia, Smti. Suniti Basumatary and Smt. Kamalwati Doley Pegu, members of Zilla Parishad and also perused the report on the first meeting of Dhemaji Zilla Parishad submitted by Shri B.N. Doley, ACS, Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Dhemaji, vide letter No. DZP-203/2005-06/1570 dated 20.3.2008. Whereas, It has been brought to my notice that the monthly of the members of Zilla Parishad, Dhemaji, who took oath on 20th March, 2008 have demanded re-fixation of date of Election of President and Vice-President of Zilla Parishad, Dhemaji, on, the grounds of threatening of candidates by some miscreants to compel them to cast their votes in favour of candidates against then will, which is also has been provoked by the action of the Hon'ble MLA, Jonai, Shri Bhuban Chandra Pegu, who tried to forcibly drag Smt. Kamalawati Doley Pegu from her chair to force her to cast her vote against her will during the election process and it appears that there was some foul play or at least no free and fair atmosphere for election of President and Vice-President of Zilla Parishad, Dhemaji. This is against the very basic of democracy no one can be allowed to force anyone to cast vote against one's will. Whereas it is very clear from the report of the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Dhemaji, that there are procedural lapses in the conduct of election of President and Vice-President of Zilla Parishad, Dhemaji, conducted on 20th March, 2008 under Section 50(1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8) of Assam Panchayat Rules, 1995 as the conduct of election for the post of President and Vice President of Zilla Parishad, Dhemaji, was not done simultaneously as explained in the Assam Panchayat Rules, 1995 under Section 50(1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8). The election of president of Zilla Parishad, Dhemaji was done first and only after the declaration of the result of the President of Zilla Parishad, Dhemaji, the nomination of Vice-President of Zilla Parishad was called for which is clear violation of the procedures mentioned in Section 50(4) of Assam Panchayat Rules, 1995. The election of president of Zilla Parishad, Dhemaji was done first and only after the declaration of the result of the President of Zilla Parishad, Dhemaji, the nomination of Vice-President of Zilla Parishad was called for which is clear violation of the procedures mentioned in Section 50(4) of Assam Panchayat Rules, 1995. Whereas, the first meeting of election for the post of President and Vice-President of Zilla Parishad, Dhemaji, could not completed and was adjourned by the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Dhemaji, and as per the Chief Executive Officer's report all the members have demanded for re-election for both the posts of President and Vice-President of Zilla Parishad, Dhemaji, and Hon'ble MLA, Jonai, Shri Bhuban Chandra Pegu tried to force one member namely, Smt. Kamalawati Doley Pegu to cast her vote against her will and there are procedural lapses in the conduct of election of President and Vice-President of Zilla Parishad, Dhemaji, I am satisfied that there are sufficient grounds to cancel the proceedings of election of President and Vice-President of Zilla Parishad, Dhemaji, held on 20th March, 2008. Therefore, I, D.N. Mishra, IAS, Deputy Commissioner, Dhemaji, do hereby cancel the proceeding's of the election of President and Vice-President of Zilla Parishad, Dhemaji, which was held on 20th March, 2008 and refix the meeting of Zilla Parishad, Dhemaji, for holding the election of President and Vice-President of Zilla Parishad, Dhemaji, on 24th Day of March, 2008 as follows. TIME VENUE 10-00 A.M. Zilla Parishad office, Dhemaji (Separate notification will be issued) However, the oath taken by members on 20th March, 2008 will be valid. Sd/- D.N. Mishra, IAS Deputy Commissioner, Dhemaji Memo No. DCL-10/2008/40-A Copy for information and necessary action to: 1. The Commissioner & Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Panchayat & Rural Development Department, Dispur. 2. The Commissioner, North Assam Division, Tezpur. 3. Shri B.N. Doley, ACS, Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Dhemaji. 4. All members of Zilla Parishad, Dhemaji. Sd/- Deputy Commissioner, Dhemaji. The Commissioner & Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Panchayat & Rural Development Department, Dispur. 2. The Commissioner, North Assam Division, Tezpur. 3. Shri B.N. Doley, ACS, Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Dhemaji. 4. All members of Zilla Parishad, Dhemaji. Sd/- Deputy Commissioner, Dhemaji. (v) In tune with the directions given by the order, dated 20.3.2008, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Dhemaji, a notification was published, on 20.3.2008, by the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Dhemaji, scheduling the 'second meeting' of the said Zilla Parishad, on 24.3.2008, at 10.00 AM., in the office of the said Zilla Parishad, for election of the President and Vice-President of the said Zilla Parishad with the Chief Executive Officer, Dhemaji Zilla Parishad, as the Authorised Officer. (vi) In terms of the notification, dated 20.3.2008, aforementioned, a meeting of the said Zilla Parishad was held, on 24.3.2008, and, in this meeting, Respondent No. 5 herein, namely, Smt. Kamalwati Doley Pegu was declared elected as President of the said Panchayat and Smt. Suniti Basumatary was declared elected as Vice-President of the said Zilla Parishad, these declarations having been made, in the said 'special meeting' of the Zilla Parishad, held on 24.3.2008. 2. By making this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which was filed by the Petitioner, on 25.3.2008, the Petitioner has put to challenge, inter alia, the legality of the decision of the Deputy Commissioner, Dhemaji, to cancel the proceedings of the election of the present Petitioner, as President of the said Zilla Parishad, in the 'first meeting' of the said Zilla Parishad, which had been held on 20.3.2008. The reliefs, which the writ Petitioner has sought for, are as under: A. For a writ of certiorari to set aside and quash the election of Respondent No. 5 as President of Dhemaji Zilla Parishad in meeting held on 24.3.2008. B. For a writ of mandamus forbearing the Respondent No. 5 from holding the post of President of the Dhemaji Zilla Parishad. C. Writ of mandamus allowing the writ Petitioner to function as President of the Dhemaji Zilla Parishad. 3. B. For a writ of mandamus forbearing the Respondent No. 5 from holding the post of President of the Dhemaji Zilla Parishad. C. Writ of mandamus allowing the writ Petitioner to function as President of the Dhemaji Zilla Parishad. 3. At the stage of motion hearing, as the order, dated 25.3.2008, passed, in this writ petition, reflects, the High Court had suspended the proceedings of the 'second meeting' of the said Zilla Parishad, held on 24.3.2008, insofar as the said proceedings relate to the election to the office of the President of the said Zilla Parishad. This interim order has been continued till date. 4. The Respondents have resisted the writ petition by filing their affidavit-in-opposition, their case being, in brief, thus: (i) The Authorised Officer ought to have held, in the 'first meeting' of the Zilla Parishad, on 20.03.2008, the elections to the offices of the President and Vice-President simultaneously inasmuch as the scheme, as embodied in Rule 50 of the said Rules, envisages that if the election to the office of the President is not unopposed, then, the Deputy Commissioner, or his delegates, as the case may be, shall invite proposals from amongst the elected members, present in the meeting of the Zilla Parishad, to elect the Vice President and, if, for the office of the Vice-President, more than one name is proposed, then, the election for the office of the Vice President, too, shall be held along with election to the office of the President. In the present case, however, the Authorised Officer, in the 'first meeting' of the Zilla Parishad, held the election to the office of the President, first, on 20.3.2008, and, having declared the present Petitioner as elected to the office of the President of the said Zilla Parishad, the nomination to the office of the Vice-President was called for, which is in violation of the procedure as, contemplated by Rule 50. (ii) Another ground of challenge to the election of the present Petitioner as President of the said Zilla Parishad is that the election to the office of the President, held in the 'first meeting', on 20.3.2008, (which stands already cancelled by the Deputy Commissioner, Dhemaji, by the impugned order, dated 20.3.2008) was not transparent and such election cannot be said to be a free and fair election. On these two grounds, the Deputy Commissioner had cancelled the proceedings of the election of the President and Vice-President of the said Zilla Parishad in the meeting, held on 20.3.2008. (iii) Yet another ground, on which the writ petition has been resisted, is that a person's election to the office of the President of a Zilla Parishad can be challenged, in the light of the provisions of Rule 50 of the Act, by way of an election petition to the Panchayat Election Tribunal constituted under Section 127of the Act and that in such circumstances, no other court, in the light of the provisions of Section 129 of the Act, can interfere with the result of the election of the President. Hence, this Court, according to the Respondents, has no jurisdiction to interfere, in exercise of its powers under Article 226, with the result of the election of the Respondent No. 5 as President of the said Zilla Parishad. 5. I have heard Mr. N. Dutta, learned senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, and Mr. A.K. Phookan, learned Advocate General, Assam. I have also heard Mr. A.M. Mazumdar, learned senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 5. 6. Before entering into the merit of the present writ petition, it may be pointed out that Rule 50 of the Rules mentions the Deputy Commissioner as the person, who shall convene the 'first meeting' of a Zilla Parishad and preside over such meeting and, it is he, who, if required, shall conduct the elections to the offices of the President and Vice-President and also make declaration of the results thereof and such a declaration shall, in the light of the provisions of Rule 50(10), be final and dispute, if any, arises as regards such an-election, it can be dealt with by the Panchayat Election Tribunal only, which may be constituted in terms of Section 127 of the Act. 7. 7. However, the learned advocate general has drawn attention of this Court to Section 138(3) of the Act and contended that the Deputy Commissioner can delegate all or any of his powers, under the Act and the Rules, to any officer of the Gazetted rank and, in this case, since the Deputy Commissioner, Dhemaji, had duly authorised the Chief Executive Officer, Dhemaji Zilla Parishad, to conduct the 'first meeting' of the said Zilla Parishad, on 20.3.2008, the Authorised Officer was competent not only to administer oath to the elected members, as is required by Sub-rule (2) of Rule 50, but also to conduct elections to the offices of the President, and the Vice-President of the said Zilla Parishad and declare the results thereof. 8. It is also worth pointing out that it is not in dispute that in the 'second meeting' of the said Zilla Parishad, held on 24.3.2008, wherein the Respondent No. 5 stood declared elected as President, the election was conducted by the Authorised Officer and declaration of the result of the election was also made by him. For the sake of clarity, Section 138 is reproduced herein-below: 138. Delegation of powers to the Dy. Commissioner, Sub-Divisional Officer or any other Gazetted Officer.- (1) The State Government may delegate any of their powers under this Act or rules framed thereunder except where expressly provided to the contrary to any Government Officer of Gazetted rank. (2) Except where expressly provided to the contrary, the Government may delegate all or any of the powers of the Depute Commissioner or the Sub-Divisional Officer under this Act or Rules framed thereunder this Act to any Government Officer of Gazetted rank. (3) Except where expressly provided to the contrary, the Deputy Commissioner or the Sub-Divisional Officer as the case may be, may delegate all or any of their powers under this Act or Rules framed under this Act to any Government Officer of Gazetted rank. (4) The delegation of power under Sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) shall be an order in writing and shall order may be modified or withdrawn at any time. 9. A careful reading, as a whole, of the provisions, contained in Section 138, reveals that unless it is provided to the contrary, a Deputy Commissioner may delegate all or any of his powers, under the Act and the Rules, to any Government officer of Gazetted rank. 9. A careful reading, as a whole, of the provisions, contained in Section 138, reveals that unless it is provided to the contrary, a Deputy Commissioner may delegate all or any of his powers, under the Act and the Rules, to any Government officer of Gazetted rank. Such delegation of power would, admittedly, include the power to conduct elections to the offices of the President and Vice-President of a Zilla Parishad and to declare the results thereof. The Authorised Officer, in the present case was, undisputedly, a Government officer of Gazetted rank and since he was duly appointed by the order, dated 7.3.2008, of the Deputy Commissioner to conduct the 'first meeting' of the said Zilla Parishad, his appointment has to be treated as an appointment made under Section138(3) of the Act. Consequently, the Authorised Officer, in the present case, being a delegatee of the Deputy Commissioner, and when no restrictions had been imposed on his powers, he obviously had all such powers, which a Deputy Commissioner has within the scheme of the Act and the Rules, and since it is the Deputy Commissioner, who is required in terms of Rule 50 of the Rules, to not only conduct, but also make declaration of the results of the elections to the offices of the President and Vice-President of the said Zilla Parishad, it is clear that the Authorised Officer, in the present case, was also equally competent, in law, to not only conduct elections to the offices, in question, but also to make declaration of the results thereof. 10. Let me, now turn to the question as to whether the declaration of the result of the election of the President of a Zilla Parishad needs to be necessarily challenged by way of an election petition made to the Panchayat Election Tribunal, which is constituted under Section 127 of the Act. 11. My quest for an answer to the question, posed above, brings me first, to the contents of Section 127, which, admittedly, embody the provisions under which the Tribunal, in question, has been constituted Section 127 reads: 127. Constitution of Panchayat Election Tribunal.- (1) The Government shall constitute such Panchayat Election Tribunals as may be necessary, on the recommendation of the High Court to dispose of all direct election petitions challenging election under this Act. Constitution of Panchayat Election Tribunal.- (1) The Government shall constitute such Panchayat Election Tribunals as may be necessary, on the recommendation of the High Court to dispose of all direct election petitions challenging election under this Act. The jurisdiction, powers and functions and the headquarters of the Tribunal shall be decided by the Government in consultation with the High Court, except as provided in Section 10 of this Act. 12. A careful reading of the above provisions shows that Section 127 conceives of constituting Tribunal for deciding election petitions arising out of 'direct' elections held under the said Act. Since the word 'election' is prefixed by the word 'direct', the election, with Section 127 conceives of, stands qualified by the word 'direct'. Hence, the election, which Section 127 speaks of, relates to only 'direct' elections. 13. Moreover, it will be highly improper, on the part of this Court, to ignore the use of the word 'direct' on the ground that the use of the worn 'direct' is inappropriate or surplusage. In fact, if the use of the word 'direct' is ignored, it will be tantamount to avoiding the construction of the language used in Section 127 and such an interpretation would render a significant part of the whole statute devoid of its real meaning and effective application. Such an approach by this Court, in interpreting Section 127, will be contrary to the well settled principles of interpretation of statutes. A reference may, in this regard, be made to Aaswini Kumar Ghosh and Anr. v. Arabinda Bose and Anr. AIR 1952 SC 369 , wherein it has been held as follows: It is not a sound principle to brush aside words in a statute as being inappropriate or surplusage if they can have appropriate application in the circumstances conceived or contemplated by the Statute. 14. Coupled with the above, it is incumbent on every court to avoid a construction of the language, which would render a part of the statute devoid of any meaning or application. I am guided to adopt this view from the law laid down in Rao Shiv Bahadur and Anr. v. State of Vindhya Pradesh AIR 1953 SC 394 . This apart, while interpreting a statute, the courts always, presume as laid down by the Apex Court in J.K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. v. State of Vindhya Pradesh AIR 1953 SC 394 . This apart, while interpreting a statute, the courts always, presume as laid down by the Apex Court in J.K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. AIR 1961 SC 1170 , that Legislature inserted every part thereof for a purpose and the legislative intent is that every part thereof should have effect. 15. The impression, that the use of word 'direct', in Section 127, is not accidental, gains strength from the fact the word 'direct' has been used in the said Act, I notice, at many places, while qualifying the word 'election', some of these words having been introduced, I find, by way of even amendment to the said Act. For instance, Section 6 of the Act lays down constitution of Gaon Panchayat and while so laying down, it states as follows: 6. Constitution of Gaon Panchayat.- (1) The Gaon Panchayat shall consist of (a) ten members to be directly elected by the voters of the territorial constituencies of the Gaon Panchayat area one from each constituency in the manner prescribed; (b) President of the Gaon Panchayat, who shall be elected directly by the voters of the territorial constituencies of the Gaon Panchayat area in the manner prescribed. (2) For the convenience of election, the prescribed authority shall in accordance with such rules as may be prescribed in this behalf by the Government, divide the area of the Gaon Panchayat into ten territorial constituencies and allot one seat each constituency. (3) When the Gaon Panchayat is constituted under this section, the Deputy Commissioner or an officer authorised by the Deputy Commissioner for this purpose shall call a meeting of the Gaon Panchayat (which shall be hereinafter called the first meeting of the Gaon Panchayat) for election of a Vice-President from amongst the members in the manner prescribed. 16. A close reading of Section 6 shows that in Section 6(1)(a) and 6(1)(b), the word 'election' has been qualified by the word 'directly', whereas in Sub-section (3) of the Section 6, while mentions the word 'election', in respect of the Vice-President, the word 'directly' has not been used. 17. 16. A close reading of Section 6 shows that in Section 6(1)(a) and 6(1)(b), the word 'election' has been qualified by the word 'directly', whereas in Sub-section (3) of the Section 6, while mentions the word 'election', in respect of the Vice-President, the word 'directly' has not been used. 17. It is also transparent from the above that since the members of a Gaon Panchayat are elected 'directly' by the voters of the area/areas concerned, Section 6(1)(a) speaks of 'direct' election and, similarly, since the President too, is elected by voters of the constituency 'directly', Section 6(1)(b) speaks of 'direct' election for the President; but in the case of election of Vice-President of a Gaon Panchayat, since the voters, in general, in a given constituency, do not 'directly' elect the Vice President and it is the members of the Gaon Panchayat who, from amongst themselves, elect the Vice-President, the word 'direct' or 'directly' has not been used in Sub-section (3). This, in turn, shows that when the word 'election' is qualified by the word 'direct' or 'directly', it will remain, in the context in which it has been used under the said Act; only such elections, which are 'direct' in nature. 18. In other words, in Section 6, the word 'directly' has been used to qualify the word 'elected' only when the voters of the territorial constituency elect a Gaon Panchayat member or Gaon Panchayat, President, as the case may be, 'directly'. It is clear that Sub-section (3) of Section 6 deals with election of Vice-President of Gaon Panchayat. Since a Vice-President of Gaon Panchayat is not elected by the voters of the Gaon Panchayat, but is chosen/elected 'indirectly' by the elected Gaon Panchayat members in the first meeting of the Gaon Panchayat, the word 'direct' has not prefixed the word 'election' in Sub-section (3) of Section 6. Thus, Section 6(3) distinguishingly illustrates the exigencies, where the elections are not 'direct'. The position is made further clear by Section 11 of the Act, whereby the authority to decide election disputes, arising out of the election of the Vice-President of the Gaon Panchayat, has been conferred on the Deputy Commissioner of the district. Thus, Section 6(3) distinguishingly illustrates the exigencies, where the elections are not 'direct'. The position is made further clear by Section 11 of the Act, whereby the authority to decide election disputes, arising out of the election of the Vice-President of the Gaon Panchayat, has been conferred on the Deputy Commissioner of the district. In short, justifiably enough, since the election of the Vice-President of a Gaon Panchayat is not 'direct', the word 'election', appearing in Section 11 is not prefixed by the word 'direct' and his election cannot be challenged by making election petition to the Panchayat Election Tribunal, constituted under Section 127. 19. The message, which emerges from a joint reading of Sections 6(3), 11 and 129(b) is that when a person is not 'directly' elected by voters, in general, of a constituency, but is elected 'indirectly' by the elected members of the constituency, the Panchayat Election Tribunal, constituted within the meaning of Section 127, cannot decide such a dispute, for, the Tribunal can decide disputes relating to 'direct' elections only. 20. The above impression gets reinforced, when one goes a little deeper into the provisions of the said Act. A close reading of Section 32 of the Act, which relates to constitution of Anchalik Panchayat, reveals that this Section states as follows: 32. Constitution of Anchalik Panchayat.- (1) Every Anchalik Panchayat shall consists of (a) one member from each Gaon Panchayat to be 'directly' elected from the territorial constituencies of the Gaon Panchayat under the jurisdiction of Anchalik Panchayat; (b) the President of the Gaon Panchayat falling within the jurisdiction of the Anchalik Panchayat; (c) the members of the House of the People and the Members of the Legislative Assembly of the State representing constituencies, which comprise wholly or partly, the Anchalik Panchayat. (2) Every member shall have the right to vote whether or not chosen by direct election in the meetings of the Anchalik Panchayat. 21. It is abundantly clear from a bare reading of Section 32 that this section, which relates to composition of Anchalik Panchayat, clearly lays down that one member from each Gaon Panchayat shall be 'directly' elected to the Anchalik Panchayat by the voters of the territorial constituency of the Gaon Panchayat concerned. Here, again, since the Anchalik Panchayat member is elected 'directly' from the Gaon Panchayat, Section 32(1)(i)(a) uses the word 'directly' elected. Here, again, since the Anchalik Panchayat member is elected 'directly' from the Gaon Panchayat, Section 32(1)(i)(a) uses the word 'directly' elected. Even in the case of Zilla Parishad, which is constituted under Section 65 of the said Act, since members of a Zilla Parishad are 'directly' elected, Section 65(1) too uses the word 'directly' elected in respect of members of the Zilla Parishad. 22. It may be noted that since the voters of the various constituencies of the Gaon Panchayats, coming within the territorial limits of the jurisdiction of an Anchalik Panchayat, do not 'directly' elect President and Vice-President of the Anchalik Panchayat, Section37(1), which relates to election of Vice-President and President of Anchalik Panchayat, lays down as follows: 37. Election of President and Vice-President of Anchalik Panchayat.- (1) The 'directly' elected members of the Anchalik Panchayat shall elect from amongst the directly elected members two members as President and Vice-President respectively of the Anchalik Panchayat in a meeting (which shall be called the first meeting of the Anchalik Panchayat) to be convened by and presided over by the Deputy Commissioner of the District in the manner prescribed. The Deputy Commissioner may delegate the powers of presiding over such meeting to any officer not below the rank of Class-I Gazetted Officer. (2) If there occurs casual vacancy in the office of the President or the Vice-President, the members shall elect another member from amongst the members as hereinafter provided, as the President or the Vice-President, as the case may be, in the manner prescribed: Provided that no election shall be held if the vacancy is for a period of less than one month. 23. From a bare reading of Section 37(1), it becomes abundantly clear that the 'directly' elected members of an Anchalik Panchayat elect, from amongst the 'directly' elected members, two members as President and Vice-President of the Anchalik Panchayat. The election of the President and Vice-President, therefore, cannot be described as 'direct' elections and it is, in fact, an in-house arrangement made by the 'directly' elected members of the Anchalik Panchayat to elect two members as President and Vice-President. The election of the President and Vice-President, therefore, cannot be described as 'direct' elections and it is, in fact, an in-house arrangement made by the 'directly' elected members of the Anchalik Panchayat to elect two members as President and Vice-President. The impression, that wherever the voters of a constituency are not involved in electing a member or an office-bearer of the Panchayat system, election has not been described as 'direct', gets strengthened from the fact that even Section 70(1), which relates to election of the President and Vice-President of Zilla Parishad, lays down as follows: 70. Election of President and Vice-President of Zilla Parishad.- (1) When the Zilla Parishad is constituted under Section 64, the Deputy Commissioner shall call a meeting of the Zilla Parishad (which shall be called the first meeting of the Zilla Parishad) for the election of a President and a Vice-President by and from amongst the members 'directly' elected under Section 65(1)(i). (2) The election of the President or the Vice-President of the Zilla Parishad and filing up vacancies in the said office and the determination of disputes relating to such election shall be in accordance with such rules as may be prescribed by the State Government/State Election Commission. 24. A bare reading of Section 70(1) shows that this Sub-section speaks only of 'election' of President and Vice-President and does not qualify the same as 'direct' election; but, at the same time, it lays down that such elections of the President and Vice-President have to take place from amongst the members 'directly' elected under Section 65(1)(i). 25. It is common knowledge that in a democracy, there are two methods of electing representatives. If the voters 'directly' participate in the election to elect their representatives, it is known as 'direct' election. The election of the members of the House of Commons in Britain as well as election of the members of the State Assemblies and Lok Sabh in India, are accepted examples of 'direct elections'. When, however, voters do not 'directly' participate in the election of their representatives, but only choose a 'directly' elected body of representatives as an intermediary body, which, in turn, elects the final representatives for the people, it is called 'indirect' method of election. Thus, the elections of the speakers of the State assembly or of Lok Sabha are examples of 'indirect elections'. Thus, the elections of the speakers of the State assembly or of Lok Sabha are examples of 'indirect elections'. In indirect election, 'directly' elected representatives of the people make in house arrangement, in accordance with their laws, to elect their ultimate representative. Election of Upper Chamber, in France, can be cited as an example of 'indirect' election. In pre-independence era, under the Government of India Act, 1935, members of the Provincial Legislative Assembly were 'directly' elected by the people, but the members of the Federal Legislative Assembly were 'indirectly' elected members inasmuch as people, in general, did not elect members of the Federal Legislative Assembly 'directly'; rather, the representatives of the people, elected for the Provincial Legislative Assembly, used to elect members of the Federal Legislative Assembly. In fact, 'direct' and 'indirect' elections from an acknowledged topic of study for students of Political Science. 26. Turning to Section 127, what is worth emphasising is that since Section 127 speaks of 'direct' election petition, there can be no escape from the conclusion that the said Act empowers the State Government to constitute, on recommendation of the High Court, Panchayat Election Tribunal for the purpose of disposing of petitions challenging all 'direct' elections held under the said Act. In other words, it is only disputes relating to 'direct' elections, which can be adjudicated upon, and/or decided by, such election tribunal. 27. Thus, when one closely analyses Section 127, it becomes transparent, as already indicated hereinabove, that Panchayat Election Tribunal, constituted under Section 127, cannot decide disputes relating to, and/or arising out of, 'indirect' elections held under the said Act. 28. Bearing above aspect of the matter in mind, when one turns to Section 129, what becomes glaringly noticeable is that Section129 does not confine itself to 'direct' or 'indirect' election inasmuch as Section 129 lays down as follows: 129. Bar to interference by courts in electoral matters. - Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act- (a) the validity of any law relating to the delimitation of constituencies on the allotment of seats to such constituencies, made under Article 243 of the Constitution of India, shall not be called in question in any court, (b) no election to any Panchayat shall be called in question except by an election petition presented within sixty days from the date of declaration of election results to the tribunal constituted under Section 127. 29. 29. Since the use of the word 'election', appearing in Section 129(b), does not stand qualified by the word 'direct', Section 129(b)will, on a cursory reading, obviously include 'direct' as well as 'indirect' elections. The question, which, how, arises in this: Can Section 129 be considered independent of, or wholly divorced from, Section 127? The answer to this vital question has to be an emphatic 'no'; the reason being that for every wrong, there has to be a remedy available with the aggrieved person. Since the State Legislature has chosen, in its wisdom, not to constitute Panchayat Election Tribunal for determining disputes arising of 'indirect' elections, the Tribunal, so constituted, cannot, to my mind, look into or decide disputes arising out of 'indirect' elections. When the Tribunal cannot decide the cases involving 'indirect' elections, the person aggrieved by the result of an 'indirect' election will not be able to seek remedy for his grievances under Section 127. At the same time, Section 129 will bar him from approaching any other court for redressal of his grievances. The aggrieved person is, thus, left with no remedy at all. Such a situation will not sub serve the ends of justice. 30. The inference that can safely be drawn from the above observations is that Section 129 has to be read subject to the provisions of Section 127 if the legislative intent has to be given its due. In fact, Sections 129 and 127 cannot be read keeping each of them in water-tight compartments and/or completely isolated from each other. If Panchayat Election Tribunal has not been vested with powers to decide a particular category or class of disputes arising out of an election, then, such a class or category of disputes would not be barred under Section 129. In other words, not only that Section 129 has to be read subject to the provisions of Section 127, but that Section 129 has to be treated as coextensive with Section 127. 31. On such a reading, as indicated hereinabove, it will become more than transparent that the disputes, arising out of 'indirect' election, will not be amenable to the jurisdiction of the Panchayat Election Tribunals constituted under Section 127 and grievances arising out of such election can be looked into, and decided by civil court of competent jurisdiction or, in an appropriate case, by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Even if there was a Panchayat Election Tribunal for looking into, and deciding, disputes relating to 'indirect' elections, the Election Tribunals would be subject to the power of superintendence vested in the High Court by Article 227. Viewed from this angle, it is difficult to hold that power of judicial review has been taken away by Section 127. 32. The question, now, which pauses itself for consideration by this Court, is this: whether it is possible for the State to vest in Panchayat Election Tribunals limited powers for determination of disputes arising out of a particular class of elections? The answer to this question has to be found within the ambit of Article 243-O of the Constitution. 33. It is Article 243-O, which really empowers the State Legislature to enact laws in matters relating to Panchayat elections curtailing, perhaps, if need be, the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts and High Court. It is, therefore, necessary to look into the provisions of Article 243-O, which reads as follows: 243-O. Bar to interference by courts in electoral matters.- Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution: (a) the validity of any law relating to the delimitation of constituencies or the allotment of seats to such constituencies, made or purporting to be made under Article 243k, shall not be called in question in any court; (b) no election to any Panchayat shall be called in question except by an election petition presented to such authority and in such manner as is provided for by or under any law made by the Legislature of a State. 34. For the purpose of this writ petition, we are not concerned with Article 243-O(a). What concerns us is the ambit and scope of Article 243-O(b). 35. A careful reading of Article 243-O(b) shows that no 'election' to any Panchayat shall be called in question except by way of an election petition presented before such authority as is provided for by or under any law made by the Legislature of a State. In other words, no election to any Panchayat can be questioned before any court except by making an election petition to such authority as may be provided for by or under any law made by the State Legislature. 36. In other words, no election to any Panchayat can be questioned before any court except by making an election petition to such authority as may be provided for by or under any law made by the State Legislature. 36. In the light of the discussions, held above, it is clear that the election of the President of a Zilla Parishad is an 'indirect' election, the Panchayat Election Tribunal, which may be constituted under Section 127, would have no power to interfere with the result of such an election. In other words, it is not possible, in the light of the clear provisions of Section 127, to challenge the election of the President of a Zilla Parishad, by way of election petition, to the Panchayat Election Tribunal. In this regard, Sub-rules (10) and (11) of Rule 50 are of great relevance and the same are, therefore, reproduced hereinbelow: 50. Election of President and Vice-President of Zilla Parishad.- (1) The Deputy Commissioner, as under Sub-section (1) of Section 70 of the Act, shall, as soon as possible after the completion of election as under Sub-section (1) of Section 65 of the Act, convene the first meeting of the Zilla Parishad comprising the members as under Sub-section (1) of Section 65 of the Act, by fixing a date, time and place and specifying the purpose and causing a written notice to be served on each of the members of the Zilla Parishad at least seven days before the date so fixed. Such meeting shall be presided over by the Deputy Commissioner concerned and the Deputy Commissioner shall not be entitled to vote. * * * * * * * * * (10) Declaration as to the election to the offices of the President and Vice-President of the Zilla Parishad by the Deputy Commissioner shall be final provided any dispute arises in the said election. (11) In case of filling up of any vacancy in the offices of the President or Vice-President of the Zilla Parishad and the determination of disputes relating to such election as under Sub-section (2) of Section70 of the Act, shall be disposed off by the Panchayat Election Tribunal as under Section 127 of the Act. 37. (11) In case of filling up of any vacancy in the offices of the President or Vice-President of the Zilla Parishad and the determination of disputes relating to such election as under Sub-section (2) of Section70 of the Act, shall be disposed off by the Panchayat Election Tribunal as under Section 127 of the Act. 37. A combined reading of Sub-rules (10) and (11) of Rule 50 makes it clear that the declaration made, at the end of the election, which may have been held to elect President and/or Vice-President of a Zilla Parishad, by a Deputy Commissioner shall be final and if any dispute arises, out of such an election, the same shall be disposed of by the Panchayat election Tribunal constituted under Section 127 of the Act and by no other means. These provisions, contained in Sub-rules (10) and (11) of Rule 50, are in exercise of State Government's powers under Sub-section (2) of Section 70, which lays down that the determination of disputes, relating to such questions, shall be in accordance with such rules as may be prescribed by the State Government or the State Election Commission. When the substantive provisions, made by the Legislature under Section 127, dis-empowers a Panchayat Election Tribunal, constituted under Section 127, from interfering with the result of the election of the President and/or Vice-President of a Zilla Parishad, these two elections being 'indirect' in nature, it is open to question if the State Government can empower, by framing rules, the Panchayat Election Tribunals to decide such disputes. 38. Be that as it may, when the vires of Sub-rule (11) of Rule 50, so far as the same relates to the result of the present election, has not been challenged in this writ petition, this Court refrains from expressing any firm view on the vires of Sub-rule (11). This apart, if Sub-rule (11) is held to be ultra vires the provisions of Section 127 of the Act, the remedy of the aggrieved party would lie in putting to challenge the result of such an election in the civil court of, competent jurisdiction or, in an appropriate case, by way of a writ petition under Article 226. 39. This apart, if Sub-rule (11) is held to be ultra vires the provisions of Section 127 of the Act, the remedy of the aggrieved party would lie in putting to challenge the result of such an election in the civil court of, competent jurisdiction or, in an appropriate case, by way of a writ petition under Article 226. 39. Without entering into the question as to whether the election of the President and/or Vice-President of a Zilla Parishad can be challenged only by way of an election petition to the Panchayat Election Tribunal or not and, further, without entering into the controversy as to whether the elections to the offices of the President and Vice-President of a Zilla Parishad must be held simultaneously and whether an omission to do so would make the elections illegal, what is necessary to point out is that the correctness of the minutes of the proceedings of the 'first meeting' is not under challenge by the Respondents in this writ petition. 40. From the minutes of the proceedings, which, at least, the Respondents do not dispute, it is clear that the election to the office of the President of the said Zilla Parishad was, indeed, held, in the 'first meeting' of the Zilla Parishad, on 20.3.2008, and the present Petitioner, having received majority of the votes, was declared elected by the authorized officer. In view of the fact that the authorized officer was, undisputedly, empowered, in terms of the provisions of Section 138(3), to declare the result of the election, so held, the result declared by the authorized officer was, by virtue of the provisions of Sub-rule (10) of Rule 50, was Final. The question, therefore, which poses itself for consideration, is this: Whether the result, so declared by the authorized officer, could have been legally and validly cancelled by the Deputy Commissioner, Dhemaji ? However hard, they may have tried, neither the learned advocate general nor Mr. Mazumdar, learned senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 5, could point out anything, in the provisions of the Act and/or the Rules, which can be said to have empowered a Deputy Commissioner to cancel the declaration of the result of the election of the President of a Zilla Parishad, after such a declaration has already boon made by the delegatee appointed by a Deputy Commissioner, in exercise of his powers under Section 138(3). In other words, the Act and the Rules do not empower the Deputy Commissioner, Dhemaji, to cancel the proceedings of a Zilla Parishad, particularly, when the proceedings pertain to election of the President and/or Vice-President of a Zilla Parishad. 41. In the backdrop of the law, as pointed above, let me, now, turn to the impugned order, dated 20.3.2008, aforementioned, whereby the Deputy Commissioner, Dhemaji has cancelled the declaration of the result of the Petitioner's election to the office of the President of the said Zilla Parishad. 42. From a minute reading of the contends of the impugned order dated 20.3.2008, aforementioned, it becomes clear that the Deputy Commissioner has assigned two reasons for interfering with the Petitioner's election and for canceling the proceedings of the election, which pertain to the election held in the 'first meeting' of the said Zilla Parishad. These two reasons are: (i) There was no free and fair atmosphere for election of the President; and (ii) The elections to the offices of the President and Vice-President ought to have been held, in tune with the provisions of Rule 50, simultaneously and not one after the other. 43. If the only way in which the declaration of the result of election of the President of a Zilla Parishad can be challenged, as contended by the Respondents themselves, by making an election petition to the Panchayat Election Tribunal, the present Petitioner's election to the office of the President could have been challenged before, and interfered with, by the Panchayat Election Tribunal, particularly, when both the grounds, which the Deputy Commissioner has assigned, in the present case, are grounds, which can become the basis for interference with the result of such an election by a Panchayat Election Tribunal. To put it a little differently, if an election is not free and fair, or when the election, already held, is alleged to have been held in violation of the mandatory requirements of the Act and/or the Rules, the remedy of the aggrieved person lies, if the contention of the Respondents is to be acceded to, in making an election petition to the Panchayat Election Tribunal. If the Panchayat Election Tribunal, constituted under Section 127, is not competent, under the law, to set aside the result of the 'indirect' election of a President of a Zilla Parishad, then, such a result can be interfered with by a civil court of competent jurisdiction or, in an appropriate case, by the High Court in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. By no means, therefore, a Deputy Commissioner can be held to have the power to cancel the declaration of the result of the election of a President of a Zilla Parishad if such a declaration has already been made either by the Deputy Commissioner himself or by his delegatee, appointed under Section 138(3). 44. What crystallizes from the above discussion is that the impugned order, dated 20.3.2008, whereby the, Deputy Commissioner, Dhemaji, has cancelled the result of the Petitioner's election to the office of the President of the said Zilla Parishad, is wholly without jurisdiction and must be treated as void ab initio. This order suffers from yet another infirmity and the infirmity is that before the result of the election of the President was cancelled, no notice or opportunity was given to the Petitioner to have his say in the matter. 45. Situated thus, it is clear that apart from the fact that without giving notice to a person, situated as the present Petitioner was, the result of his election could not have been cancelled by the Deputy Commissioner, the Deputy Commissioner did not really have any power, under any provisions of the Act and the Rules, to cancel the result of the Petitioner's election. When such is the case at hand, this Court is bound to set aside and quash, in exercise of its powers under Article 226, the impugned order, dated 20.3.2008, whereby the Deputy Commissioner, Dhemaji, has cancelled the result of the Petitioner's election to the office of the President of the said Zilla Parishad. When such is the case at hand, this Court is bound to set aside and quash, in exercise of its powers under Article 226, the impugned order, dated 20.3.2008, whereby the Deputy Commissioner, Dhemaji, has cancelled the result of the Petitioner's election to the office of the President of the said Zilla Parishad. If the order, dated 20.3.2008, is set aside and quashed, as this Court must do, it logically follows that in consequence of the setting aside and quashing of the order, dated 20.3.2008, aforementioned, the result of the election of the Respondent No. 5, who has been subsequently ejected as President of the said Zilla Parishad, must also be interfered with and she shall be restrained and prohibited from assuming charge of the office of the President of the said Zilla Parishad until the time the present Petitioner's election to the said office is interfered with, or set aside, in accordance with law. It further logically follows that the present Petitioner must, in the facts of the present case and the law relevant thereto, be allowed to assume charge of the office of the President of the said Zilla Parishad until the time the result of his election to the office of the President of the said Zilla Parishad is interfered with in accordance with law. 46. Considering, therefore, the matter in its entirety and in the interest of justice, this writ petition stands allowed. The impugned order, dated 20.3.2008, whereby the Deputy Commissioner, Dhemaji, has cancelled the Petitioner's election to the office of the President of the said Zilla Parishad and also the subsequent election of the Respondent No. 5 to the said office, are hereby set aside and quashed. The Respondents are hereby directed to allow the Petitioner to assume charge of the office of the President of the said Zilla Parishad and continue to hold the same until the time he is removed from the office in accordance with law. The interim directions, passed, in this case, on 25.3.2008, shall accordingly stand modified. 47. With the above observations and directions, this writ petition shall stand disposed of. 48. No order as to cost. Petition allowed.