Allowed

Lallawmthanga and 2 Ors. v. Ladc And 5 Ors.

Gauhati HC13 Sept 2022WP(C)/88/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court allowed a writ petition challenging the suspension of a Village Council. The court set aside the suspension orders, holding that the show-cause notice was not issued to all members, the Inquiry Commission was not appointed via a valid public notification, and the Commission did not specifically recommend suspension.

What did the court decide?

Impugned notifications suspending the Village Council were set aside; the Village Council was allowed to function; petitioners to be paid remuneration for the suspension period.

Lallawmthanga and 2 Ors. Vs Ladc And 5 Ors. — Landlord and Tenant | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/11

¶2

GAHC030003572022

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/88/2022

¶5

Lallawmthanga and 2 Ors. President, Nghalimlui, Village Council, Lawngtlai District, Mizoram.

2: A. Lalhmangaihi

3: A. Ramkhum

VERSUS

LADC And 5 Ors.

r/b The Chief Executive Member, LADC, Lawngtlai, Mizoram

¶11

2:The Executive Member i/c LAD etc.

¶12

3:The Local Administrative Officer

4:Johna

5:Khusirung

6:Rotonosajo

Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr B Lalramenga

¶17

Advocate for the Respondent : Mr. Lalpianfela Chawngthu for R1- R3

¶18

Page No.# 2/11

¶19

B E F O R E

¶20

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NELSON SAILO

¶21

13.09.2022

¶22

Heard Mr. B. Lalramenga, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Lalpianfela Chawngthu, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3. None appears for the respondent Nos. 4, 5 & 6 despite notice.

¶23

[2.] By filing this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the Notification dated 07.04.2022 (Annexure-7) and Notification dated 11.07.2022 (Annexure-8) by which, the Village Council of Nghalimlui under Lai Autonomous District Council (LADC) has been suspended initially for 3 (three) months and thereafter, extended for another 3 (three) months respectively. It is the case of the petitioners that they are the Office Bearers of Nghalimlui Village Council and they were elected as such in the General Election held on 08.05.2019. While they were discharging their duties with the best of their ability, the respondent authorities issued a Notification dated 02.11.2021 appointing a One-Man Inquiry Commission to enquire into the allegation made against the Village Council. The OneMan Inquiry Commission submitted his report on 17.11.2021 and pursuant to which a show-cause notice was issued to the Village Council on 22.02.2022. Although, a reply was submitted to the show-cause notice,

¶24

Page No.# 3/11

¶25

the respondents concerned nevertheless, issued the two impugned

¶26

notifications suspending the Village Council. Aggrieved, the petitioners are before this Court.

¶27

[3.] Mr. B. Lalramenga, learned counsel submits that the One-Man Inquiry Commission was not appointed by way of a public notification and that the show-cause notice was given only to the Village Council President and not to the other members. He further submits that the One-Man Inquiry Commission nowhere recommended the suspension of the Village Council but despite the same, the Village Council was suspended. He also submits that against the show-cause notice issued by the respondent authorities, the petitioners submitted a detailed reply but their reply was no properly considered by the respondent authorities. The learned counsel further submits that the case of the petitioners is squarely covered by the Judgment rendered by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 06.10.2020 in connection with WP(C) No. 79/2020 (C. Vanlalpeka vs. LADC R/b CEM) which is annexed to the writ petition as Annexure-9. Referring to the said Judgment, the learned counsel submits that the Court had also placed reliance upon the earlier Judgment rendered in Sangrimawii vs. LADC & Ors., 2017 (1) GLT 545 to come to the conclusion that the appointment order of the One-Man Inquiry Commission was not put in public domain, in addition to the giving of the copies of the notification to the persons

¶28

Page No.# 4/11

¶29

mentioned in the notification. Likewise, the Court also came to the conclusion that there was no recommendation by the One-Man Inquiry Commission for suspending the Village Council and even on that count, the order of suspension was bad in law. He, therefore, submits that since the case of the petitioners is squarely covered by the earlier decision of this Court, the order of suspension passed against the petitioners may be interfered with.

¶30

[4.] Mr. Lalpianfela Chawngthu, learned counsel appearing for the LADC, on the other hand, by referring to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the said respondents submits that it is clear from the findings arrived at by the One-Man Inquiry Commission that he recommended taking of stringent action against the Village Council which resulted in its suspension. Therefore, it is not a case where there was no recommendation by the One-Man Inquiry Commission against the Village Council concerned. He further submits that the term ‘public notification’ has not been defined under the Lai Autonomous District Council (Village Council) Act, 2010 (Act of 2010). Insofar as the notifications impugned in the present case, the respondent authorities had issued the same to all concerned persons and the same was not concealed and was made accessible to the public at large. Therefore, the petitioners cannot have any grievance against the official respondents in this regard. He further

¶31

Page No.# 5/11

¶32

submits that the Village Council President, as the Head of the Village Council, presides over the Village Council and all the members of the Village Council are collectively responsible for all the act purported to be done in the name of the Village Council. The complaint received by the official respondent was not against the particular member of the Village Council but against the misconduct of Nghalimlui Village Council as a whole. Therefore, it was not necessary to issue notice to each of the Village Council member. He submits that upon due consideration of the enquiry report made by the One-Man Inquiry Commission and upon giving opportunity to the petitioners who submitted a reply to the report, the Village Council was suspended and in doing so, the respondent authorities have not committed any irregularity. He, therefore, submits that under the facts and circumstances, the petitioners cannot be said to have any legitimate grievance and the writ petition should be dismissed.

¶33

[5.] I have heard the submissions made by the learned counsels for the rival parties and I have perused the materials available on record.

¶34

[6.] As may be noticed, the grievance of the petitioners through the instant writ petition is mainly on 4 (four) points i.e. the show-cause notice

¶35

was only given to the President, Village Council and not to the other members, the One-Man Inquiry Commission was not appointed by way of

¶36

Page No.# 6/11

¶37

a public notification, there was no recommendation from the One-Man Inquiry Commission for suspending the Village Council and lastly, the reply given to the show-cause notice by the petitioners was not properly considered.

¶38

[7.] Coming to the first ground taken, it may be seen from the ShowCause dated 22.02.2022 annexed by the petitioners as Annexure-5 of the writ petition, the same was issued to the President, Village Council Court, Nghalimlui. This Court in the case of C. Vanlalpeka & Ors., (supra) on this point held that the Village Council members, including the Village Council Presidents are all elected to their Office through adult suffrage. The Village Council President is appointed only from amongst the elected Village Council members. As they are all elected members, each of the members of the Village Council has a role to play in the administration of the Village and handling of funds. If the rights of the entire Village Council are to be affected to their detriment, it is a requirement of the principles of natural justice that each and every member of the Village Council is given a chance to be heard. Otherwise, it amounts to condemn the other Village Council members, who have not been given any show-cause notices, prior to the suspension of Village Council, unheard. Accordingly, it was held that non issuance of notice to each of the Village Council members is in violation of the principles of natural justice causing

¶39

Page No.# 7/11

¶40

prejudice to the Village Council members who have not been issued such notice.

¶41

[8.] In respect of the non-appointment of One-Man Inquiry Commission by way of public notification, this Court again in the case of C. Vanlalpeka (supra) on this issue held that there was nothing to show that notifications appointing the Commission had been put in public domain which could include putting up the same on the notice board in the concerned Office and in the Village Council. Therefore, such a notification cannot be considered as a public notification. The relevant portion of the Judgment i.e., the relevant portion of the Judgment i.e., WP(C) No. 13, 14 & 15 may be abstracted below:-

¶42

“ 13 . In order to dispose of the present case, it would be helpful if the relevant provisions of the 2010 Act are reproduced. Accordingly, Section 10(1) & Section 11 of the 2010 Act are reproduced below:-

¶43

“ 10 . Dissolution of Village Council.

¶44

(i) The Executive Committee, may, by public notification appoint a Commission consisting of not more than three persons from amongst the officers of the District Council to enquire into the affairs of the Village council if it is considered that the Village Council is too inefficient or is unable to carry on the Village administration or is acting in

¶45

Page No.# 8/11

¶46

a manner prejudicial to the interest of the State of the District Council or is known to have been indulging in corrupt practices in the matter of village administration. The commission shall, after proper enquiry, submit its report of findings along with its recommendation to the Executive Committee within a period of times specified by the Executive Committee.

¶47

11 . Suspension of Village Council.

¶48

(i) The Executive Committee may, on the recommendation of the Commission appointed under Section 10 of this Act, order suspension of any Village Council for a period of three months at a time which may be extended for another three months. During the period of suspension the Executive Committee shall assume to itself all the powers and functions of the Village Council and appoint not more than three persons from amongst prominent Villagers as provided by sub-section (4) of section 10 of this Act.

¶49

(ii) If a Village Council fails to form its Executive Body on expiry of the suspension period, than the Executive Committee may order forthwith dissolution of the Village Council and a by-election shall be held within six months.

¶50

(iii) The prominent villagers so appointed to assume charge of Village Council may be paid such remuneration as may be decided by the Executive Committee from time to time.”

¶51

14 . A perusal of Section 10(1) shows that a Commission may be

¶52

Page No.# 9/11

¶53

appointed by the Executive Committee by way of public notification. On a perusal of the various impugned notifications issued by the Executive Committee appointing the One-Man Inquiry Commissions, it can be seen that the notifications had been issued to the person concerned, who was appointed to conduct the One-Man Inquiry Commissions and copies given to the Personal Assistant (P.A) to the Chief Executive Member, LADC, Members of the District Council, LADC, Village Council President, Village Council Members, Village Council Secretary and a copy of the notification was to be kept in the office order book. In the case of Sangrimawii vs. LADC & Ors ., reported in 2017 (1) GLT 545 , this Court has held in paragraph No. 11 as follows:-

¶54

11. In view of the above, this Court finds that the constitution/appointment of a One Man Commission by the respondents without there being any public notification, has to be deemed to be bad in law and accordingly the said Commission is held to be in-valid. The records show that the appointment of the One-Man Inquiry Commission has been made on a pen written paper. The same does not have any memo number, nor does it show that the said document has been made for public circulation. There is no file noting or documents to show that the appointment of the One-Man Inquiry Commission has been publicized in the news media or otherwise for public knowledge or that it is in public domain.”

¶55

15 . In the present case, the appointment orders of the One-Man Inquiry Commission have memo numbers, though they have not been put in the public domain. Though the 2010 Act does not

¶56

Page No.# 10/11

¶57

define or clarify the words “public notification”, this Court is of the view that the respondents should have put up the said appointment orders in public domain, in addition to giving copies of the same to the persons mentioned in the fore-going paragraph. There is nothing to show that the notifications appointing the Commissions had been put in public domain which could include putting up the same on the notice boards of the concerned office and in the village. Keeping in view object of Rule 10 and 11 of the 2010 Act and the role to be played by the Commission, this Court is of the view that the appointment orders of the One-Man Inquiry Commission, by way of the various notifications cannot be said to be public notification.”

¶58

[9.] Upon perusal of the impugned Notification dated 02.11.2021 (Annexure-3 ‘B’) appointing the One-Man Inquiry Commission in the present case and the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench in this regard, it can be seen that the issue considered and decided are similar and if not identical. Therefore, I find the present case to be squarely covered by the said decision.

¶59

[10.] Insofar as, there being no recommendation by the One-Man Inquiry Commission, it can be plainly seen from the recommendation dated 17.11.2021 submitted by the One-Man Inquiry Commission that there is no specific recommendation for suspending the Village Council but only to the effect that a stringent action be taken against the Village Council. The same cannot be construed as a recommendation for

¶60

Page No.# 11/11

¶61

suspending the Village Council. In the result, the impugned notifications suspending the Village Council are found to be unsustainable and are accordingly set aside. Since the suspension of the Village Council is found to be illegal, the suspended Village Council shall be allowed to function and the petitioners shall be paid their remuneration for the period they were under the suspension.

¶62

[11.] The writ petition accordingly stands allowed.

¶63

JUDGE

¶64

Comparing Assistant

Lallawmthanga and 2 Ors. v. Ladc And 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lallawmthanga and 2 Ors. v. Ladc And 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sh. Lalnuntluanga Vs Union of India and 6 Ors.

Sakir Uddin Vs State of Mizoram

Smt. a. Vanlalzawni and Anr. Vs Dr. Renu Sharma and 4 Ors.

Hussain Ahmed Laskar and Anr. Vs The State of Mizoram

Guljar Hussain Vs The State of Mizoram

Shifar Uddin Vs The State of Mizoram