JUDGMENT : MANISH CHOUDHURY, J. Heard Mr. N.H. Barbhuiya, learned counsel for the petitioners; Mr. S. Dutta, learned Standing Counsel, Panchayat & Rural Development [P&RD] for the respondent nos. 1, 2, 5 & 6; and Mr. B.J. Talukdar, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. P.K. Medhi, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 3 & 4. 2. The petitioners, four in nos., have joined together to institute the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to assail two Resolutions, dated 23.06.2025 and dated 03.07.2025, adopted purportedly in the First Meeting and the Adjourned Meeting respectively of Madhabpur Rampur Gaon Panchayat. 3. The relevant fats, in brief, are that all the petitioners are elected Ward Members of Madhabpur Rampur Gaon Panchayat. They got elected in the General Panchayat Election held in the year 2025. After declaration of the results of the Election, the respondent no. 3 vide a Notice dated 11.06.2025 notified the time and date of the First Meeting of different Gaon Panchayats of Hailakandi district including Madhabpur Rampur Gaon Panchayat. In the Notice, the agendas were mentioned and they were – [i] Oath of affirmation to all members before commencement of the Meeting; [ii] Election of President concerned; [iii] Election of Vice- President concerned; and [iv] Miscellaneous. In the Notice, Block Headquarters were mentioned as the venue for the First Meeting and an Assistant Commissioner was nominated to attend and hold the First Meeting of the Ward Members of the Gaon Panchayats. 4. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that the time and date of the First Meeting for Madhabpur Rampur Gaon Panchayat was scheduled at 11-00 a.m. on 23.06.2025 and in that First Meeting, six nos. of Ward Members of Madhabpur Rampur Gaon Panchayat were present at the time and venue. There was no impediment to carry out the agendas on that day. But, the nominated authority adjourned the First Meeting purportedly on the ground that there was no quorum to hold the First Meeting. It is the further contention of the petitioners that the Adjourned Meeting was held on 03.07.2025 without giving any notice to the Ward Members, more particularly, to the petitioners. In the Meeting stated to be held on 03.07.2025, the petitioners could not be present in view of non-receipt of any information in that regard. It is the further contention of the petitioners that the Adjourned Meeting was held on 03.07.2025 without giving any notice to the Ward Members, more particularly, to the petitioners. In the Meeting stated to be held on 03.07.2025, the petitioners could not be present in view of non-receipt of any information in that regard. The Adjourned Meeting was, however, shown to be held in presence of six Ward Members of Madhabpur Rampur Gaon Panchayat. In a Resolution stated to have been taken in that Adjourned Meeting, the respondent no. 7 and the respondent no. 8 have been shown elected as the President and the Vice-President of Madhabpur Gaon Panchayat. Aggrieved by the two Resolutions adopted on 23.06.2025 and on 03.07.2025 respectively in the afore-stated manner, the petitioners have approached this court by the instant writ petition. 5. Mr. Dutta, learned Standing Counsel, P&RD has submitted that any dispute relating to the validity of the election of the President and the Vice-President of a Gaon Panchayat under the ASSAM PANCHAYAT ACT , 1994, as amended, can be decided by the Deputy Commissioner [the respondent no. 3]. Mr. Dutta has further highlighted that the petitioners have stated that they have already submitted two Representations before the respondent no. 3 on 04.07.2025 and on 17.07.2025. 6. In response, Mr. Barbhuiya, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that though the petitioners have submitted the Representations before the respondent no. 3 on those dates, the respondent no. 3 has neither put the petitioners on notice for any hearing nor the petitioners have been intimated about any decision taken thereon. 7. Mr. Talukdar, learned Senior Counsel representing the respondent no. 3 has submitted that if the Representations on behalf of the petitioners are pending, then the respondent no. 3 can be directed to take those Representations on board and thereafter, to decide them after hearing the stakeholders. 8. Having regard to the nature of the order to be passed disposing of the writ petition at the motion stage itself, issuance of notice to the other respondents is dispensed with as the order is not going to be prejudicial to them in any manner. 9. The dispute raised in this writ petition by the petitioners is relating to the validity of the election of the respondent no. 8 and the respondent no. 9. The dispute raised in this writ petition by the petitioners is relating to the validity of the election of the respondent no. 8 and the respondent no. 7 as the President and the Vice- President of Madhabpur Rampur Gaon Panchayat and the grounds urged as regards the validity of the election of the respondent no. 7 and the respondent no. 8 have already been narrated above. 10. The learned counsel of the parties have agitated on the point of presence of quorum or lack of quorum in the First Meeting and the Adjourned Meeting and violation of principles of natural justice. But, this Court is of the view that such questions can be decided by the respondent no. 3 on the basis of the records of the proceedings of those Meetings. This Court is of the considered view that the fact-finding enquiry required prior to arrival at any decision as regards the validity of two resolutions and regarding absence of notice, put to question here, ought to be carried out at the end of the Deputy Commissioner first. 11. Section 11 of the ASSAM PANCHAYAT ACT , 1994, as amended, has prescribed that any dispute relating to the election of the President and the Vice-President of the Gaon Panchayat under the ASSAM PANCHAYAT ACT , 1994 shall be decided by the Deputy Commissioner. 12. Since the respondent no. 3 has the authority and jurisdiction to decide on any dispute relating to the validity of the election of the respondent no. 7 and the respondent no. 8 herein and it is stated at the Bar that the petitioners have already submitted two Representations before the respondent no. 3 on 04.07.2025 and 17.07.2025 respectively, receipt of which have already been acknowledged by his office, this court is of the considered view that instead of keeping this writ petition pending, the writ petition can be disposed of with a direction to the respondent no. 3 to take the said two Representations, submitted by the petitioners, on board and to take a decision on it. It is accordingly ordered. 13. It is further observed that before taking any decision on the said two Representations, the opportunity of hearing should be afforded to the stakeholders, more particularly, to the petitioners and all the other Ward Members of Madhabpur Rampur Gaon Panchayat including the respondent no. 7 and the respondent no. It is accordingly ordered. 13. It is further observed that before taking any decision on the said two Representations, the opportunity of hearing should be afforded to the stakeholders, more particularly, to the petitioners and all the other Ward Members of Madhabpur Rampur Gaon Panchayat including the respondent no. 7 and the respondent no. 8, and the authority who was nominated to hold the Meetings on 23.06.2025 and 03.07.2025; by serving them notices. The respondent no. 3 is further directed to dispose of the Representations deciding on the validity of the election of the President and the Vice-President of the Madhabpur Rampur Gaon Panchayat by passing a speaking order which shall be communicated to the parties immediately thereafter. 14. The entire exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as possible, but within an outer limit of 6 [six] weeks from the date of submission of a certified copy of this Order at the office of the respondent no. 3 by the petitioners. 15. The writ petition is disposed of in the afore-stated terms. No cost.