Dismissed

Sanmilit Suraksha Mancha and Anr. v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Gauhati HC1 Feb 2019WP(C)/3718/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking quashing of a draft notification including four villages in the Mising Autonomous Council. After the Deputy Commissioner affirmed via affidavit that these villages were excluded due to low ST population, the court held the petitioners' grievance was redressed and disposed of the case.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is disposed of as the grievance regarding the inclusion of the four villages in the Council has been redressed upon confirmation of their exclusion.

Sanmilit Suraksha Mancha and Anr. Vs the State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Gauhati HC (2019)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010008452013

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶4

Case No. : WP(C) 3718/2013

¶5

1:SANMILIT SURAKSHA MANCHA and ANR.

¶6

SIVASAGAR, REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT, SRI KRISHNA BORAH, SON OF LT. BAPURAM BORAH, R/O VILL- DEMOWMUKH, P.O. and P.S. SIVASAGAR, ASSAM.

¶7

2: NIRANJAN GOGOI THE GENERAL SECY. SANMILIT SURAKSHA MANCHA SIVASAGAR

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

1:THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS

¶10

REP. BY THE CHIEF SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, DISPUR, GHY-6.

¶11

2:THE SECY.

¶12

TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM

¶13

DEPARTMENT OF WELFARE OF PLAIN TRIBES AND BACKWARD CLASSES DISPUR

¶14

GHY-6.

¶15

3:THE MISING AUTONOMOUS COUNCIL DISTRICT-SIVASAGAR ASSAM REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶16

4:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER SIVASAGAR ASSAM.

¶17

5:THE SECY.

¶18

ASSAM STATE ELECTION COMMISSION ASSAM DISPUR GHY-6

¶19

Page No.# 2/3

¶20

Advocate for the Petitioner : MS.N GOGOI

¶21

Advocate for the Respondent :

¶22

BEFORE

¶23

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN

¶24

ORDER

¶25

Date : 01-02-2019

¶26

Heard Mr. A. Narzary, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. N. Goswami, learned Govt. Advocate, Assam. Also heard Mr. J. Abbas, learned counsel for respondent No.3. None has appeared on behalf of respondent No.5.

¶27

Petitioner No.1 is the Sanmillit Suraksha Mancha, Sivasagar whereas petitioner No.2 is the General Secretary of the aforesaid Mancha. It is stated that petitioner No.1 is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 having its office at Sivasagar.

¶28

By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners seek quashing of draft notification dated 03.04.2013 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Sivasagar in so far it includes the villages Dighaldoriali, Demowmukh, Balamakoibarta and Lepai in the No.22 Dichang Dekhow constituency of Mising Autonomous Council and further seeks a direction to the respondents to exclude the said villages from Mising Autonomous Council (Council).

¶29

This Court by order dated 15.07.2013 had issued notice and directed maintenance of status quo as on 15.07.2013.

¶30

It may be mentioned that as per the draft notification dated 03.04.2013 and the proposal of the Deputy Commissioner, Sivasagar dated 26.04.2013, the aforesaid four villages were included in the No.22 Dichang Dekhow constituency of the Council.

¶31

In the hearing which took place on 25.08.2017, this Court took note of the contention of the petitioners that in the aforesaid four villages, population of scheduled tribe (Mising) is less than 50% and therefore under Section 4(1) of the Mising Autonomous Council Act, 1995, the four villages were required to be excluded from the Council. Learned State Counsel submitted that there was a proposal to exclude the said four villages from the Council. In view of the stand taken, this Court directed the State to file an affidavit.

¶32

Page No.# 3/3

¶33

Following the same, an affidavit was filed on 04.09.2017 on behalf of respondent No.4, i.e., Deputy Commissioner, Sivasagar. Stand taken in the said affidavit is that a draft list of villages to be included in the Dichang Dekhow constituency was published on 03.04.2013. Objections were received against inclusion of number of villages in the said constituency including the four villages by the petitioners whereafter report was called for from the Executive Officer, Sivasagar. A discussion was also held with various stakeholders on 18.04.2013.

¶34

Census data of 2001 indicates that population of scheduled tribe in all the four villages would be less than 30%. Therefore, after due consideration, the four villages were excluded from the Council. In all, 15 numbers of villages were proposed to be excluded from the Council.

¶35

Having regard to the stand taken by respondent No.4 that above four villages have been excluded from the Council, grievance of the petitioners have been redressed.

¶36

Consequently, respondent No.4 shall issue fresh/final notification if not already issued excluding the aforesaid four villages from the Dichang Dekhow constituency of the Council as well as from the Council.

¶37

Writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶38

JUDGE

¶39

Comparing Assistant

Sanmilit Suraksha Mancha and Anr. v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanmilit Suraksha Mancha and Anr. v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Sri Balaji Cement Private Limited Vs Sailendra Narayan Mishra

Vijay Kumar Gupta Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

M/S. Saptarshi Industries Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Shiblal Kuhar Vs the State of Assam and 10 Ors.

Dakhin Ganesh Nagar Yubak Sangha and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and 7 Ors.

Monju Urang Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.