M. C. PATHAK, J. i This is an application under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the notice dated 16-5-1966 issued of the Secretary, Executive Committee, District Council, United Khasi and Jaintia Hills, Shillong, requiring the members of the electoral body far the elec­tion of the Syiem of Sohrah (Cherra) to appear before the Executive Member in charge of Rural Administration in the office of the Syiem of Sohrah (Cherra) for recording their votes to elect the Syiem in place of late U. Join Manik Syiem and for issuing a direc­tion to the Executive Committee not to give effect to that Purwana and also for a direc­tion to the Executive Committee to publish the result of the election held on 14-3-1966 and to place the same before the District Council for approval. 2. The facts of the case are as follows: Before the Independence of India, Syiem-ship of Cherra was a semi-independent State under the suzerainty of the British Crown. After Independence of India there was a standstill agreement and with the com­mencement of the Constitution this State as well as the other States in the Khasi Hills got merged into the State of Assam. Thereafter the merged States in the Khasi Hills form­ed into an Autonomous District, namely United Khasi and Jaintia Hills for the pur­poses mentioned in the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution of India, hereinafter called 'the Sixth Schedule'. In exercise of the powers under paragraph 3 of the Sixth Schedule, the District Council passed the United Khasi-Jaintia Hills Autonomous Dis­trict (Appointment and Succession of Chiefs and Headmen) Act, 1959 (United Khasi-Jaintia Hills Act No. II of 1959), hereinafter called 'the Act'. This Act received the as­sent of the Governor of Assam on the 16th October 1959 and was published in the Assam Gazette dated 28th October 1959, in Pursuance of paragraph 11 of the Sixth schedule. 3. It is submitted at the Bar that mo rules have been framed up-till now under this Act. 4. The petitioner's case is that under the existing custom prevalent in the Elaka con­cerned, the Syiem of Cherra is to be elect­ed by an electoral college from among such members of the Syiem clan as may contest for the syiemship. One who is not a mem­ber of the Syiem clan is not eligible to con­test for the office. 4. The petitioner's case is that under the existing custom prevalent in the Elaka con­cerned, the Syiem of Cherra is to be elect­ed by an electoral college from among such members of the Syiem clan as may contest for the syiemship. One who is not a mem­ber of the Syiem clan is not eligible to con­test for the office. Shri Join Manik, the Syiem of Cherra, died in July 1963 and the District Council appointed Shri Rudra-manik, the acting Syiem, under the Act. By a Purwana dated 8-1-1966 the Secre­tary of the Executive Committee of the District Council called upon the electoral college to elect a Syiem within thirty days to fill op the vacancy caused by the death of Sri Join Manik. The names of the mem­bers of the electoral college were also put in the said Purwana. It was also stated in the said Purwana that the District Council re­served the absolute discretion to reject or to accept any nominee offered by the elec­tors and that his office as Syiem would not be valid and complete until it has been ex­pressly approved Tby the District Council. 5. That a meeting of the electoral col­lege was held on 22-1-1966 in which it called for the nomination of the candidates and also requested the Executive Committee of the District Council to extend the time for election. The Executive Committee extend­ed the time till 28-2-1966 which was fur­ther extended till 15-3-1966. A notice was issued under the signature of eleven promi­nent members of the electoral college fix­ing the election! to be held at 10-00 a.m. on the 14th March, 1966, at the office of the Syiem of Cherrapunji and the said notice was served by special messengers on every member of the electoral college. At 10-00 a.m. on 14-3-1966, the electoral college sat in a meeting at the office of the Syiem at Cherapunji under the chairmanship of Shri Sheksing Sarler and open vote was taken. Ultimately there were two candidates for the syiem-ship. In that election, 20 voted for the petitioner while 14 voted for Shri Rudra Manik. The Chairman did not cast his vote. Ultimately there were two candidates for the syiem-ship. In that election, 20 voted for the petitioner while 14 voted for Shri Rudra Manik. The Chairman did not cast his vote. The report of the election held was drawn up in the meeting which was read over to and signed by all the members of the college present including the Chair­man and also by the Secretary of the meeting who was also the permanent Secre­tary of the Durbar. The Chairman was authorised to present the report on 15-3-1966 as feed by the District Council. Accord­ingly, the report along with the true copy of the proceedings of the Durbar of the Myntries and electors of Cherra Syiemship was submitted on 15-3-1966 to the Chief executive Member and the Secretary, Exe­cutive Committee, District Council, United Kkaai-Jaintia Hills, Shillong. «$. The Executive Committee, while extending the time for election till 15-3-1966 by their letter dated 21-2-1966, warned that no more time would be allowed after that. On 10-3-1966, the electoral college applied for further extension of time but as the office of the District Council was closed and no order for the extension of the time was passed by the Executive Committee, the election was held on the 14th March 1966 with the above result. 7. After the election was held on 14-8-1900, the Executive Committee, however, by a Purwana dated 18th March 1966 inti­mated that time for election was extended till 13-4-1966. A meeting of the electoral college was thereupon held on the 9th April 1966 and the members expressed their views that as the electoral college had already elected the Syiem on 14-3-1966 finally, there was no room for any fresh election. The members once again requested the Exe­cutive Committee to place the result of the election held on 14-3-1966 before the Dis­trict Council for approval. 8. That on 16-5-1966 the Secretary of the Executive Committee, however issued the Purwana No. DC/PC/13/63/65/3260 dated 16-5-1966, which has been challenged as illegal and without jurisdiction in this writ petition. 9. At the outset, Mr. Lahiri, the learned counsel on behalf of the Opposite Parties, has submitted that the petitioner has no legal right to approach the Court in the in­stant case under Articles 226/227! of the Constitution of India and as such the peti­tion should be dismissed in limine. 10. 9. At the outset, Mr. Lahiri, the learned counsel on behalf of the Opposite Parties, has submitted that the petitioner has no legal right to approach the Court in the in­stant case under Articles 226/227! of the Constitution of India and as such the peti­tion should be dismissed in limine. 10. In this connection, he has referred to a decision of this Court in Civil Rule No. 70 of 1959 (Assam), U. Pentisijen v. Executive Committee of District Council, Khasi-Jaintia Hills. In that case the peti­tioner got the highest number of votes for appointment to the post of Sirdar of Maw-den Syiemship. It was, however, subse­quently contested that he was not entitled to be elected to that post. It was found that the petitioner was not a resident of Mawdon Elaka and also had not given an undertaking to the effect that he would on his election reside in that Elaka and as such was not qualified to be appointed to that post and accordingly the name of Opposite Party No. 2 in that case, who secured the next highest number of votes, was recom­mended and this recommendation was ac­cepted by the District Council and the Opposite Party No. 2 was appointed to that post. By a writ petition the petitioner in Civil Rule No. 70 of 1959 challenged this appointment of Sirdar of Mawdon Syiem­ship. On these facts, the High Court held that the petitioner could not establish that h« had any right to the post of Sirdar merely because be secured the highest num­ber of votes and the appointment rests with the District Council. In the circumstances that petition was dismissed as the petitioner had no right to the post as such. The facts of the case before us are, however, different. 11. Mr. Lahiri then referred to the deci­sion of this Court in Civil Rule No. 242 of 1963 (Assam), U. Broshon Roy Phanwanjah v. District Council of Autonomous District, U. K. and T. Hills. In that case, one Ijolim who was the Syiem of Mawsyram died on 6-1-1954 and the Executive Committee of the District Council, United Khasi and Jaintia Hills, asked four Myntries to fill up the vacancy. Accordingly, the Myntries sat together and three out of the four Myntries elected the petitioner as the Syiem of Maw­syram and the fourth Myntry did not nomi­nate anybody. Accordingly, the Myntries sat together and three out of the four Myntries elected the petitioner as the Syiem of Maw­syram and the fourth Myntry did not nomi­nate anybody. The result was reported to the District Council for approval as required under S. 3 of the Act. Thereafter, the Special Officer of the Executive Committee of the District Council issued a circular on 18-8-1963 saying that a general election would be held on 1-10-1963. The petitioner filed an objection petition before the Execu­tive Committee on 23-9-1963 against the proposed election claiming that as the peti­tioner had already been elected as the Syiem, his election should be placed be­fore the District Council for approval and that it was against the custom to hold such a general election. But the election was held on 1-10-1963. The petitioner and two others did not participate the same in pro­test. Opposite Party No. 4, U. Clorence Jaid Malugiang secured the highest number of votes in that election and the Presiding Officer reported to the District Council that he should be declared elected to the syiem-ship of Mawsyram. The Executive Com­mittee placed the, matter before the District Council for approval of the election of Opposite Party No. 4. The petition was filed against that deci­sion of the Executive Committee. The con­tention of the petitioner in that case was that the election of the Syiem of Mawsy­ram was exclusively the business of the four Myntries and none else. By that petition, the petitioner asked for an appropriate writ for declaring the general election held on 1-10-1963 invalid and illegal and declaring the election of the petitioner as the Syiem of Mawsyram as valid. On those facts, the High Court held that when one of the four Myntries did not nominate the peti­tioner, the decision of the Myntries could not be said to be unanimous. The Opposite Party's case was that when there was no unanimity among the Myntries in the selec­tion of the Syiem, a general election had to be held on the votes of all the adult male members of the Elaka for the appointment of the Syiem. The petitioner challenged that there was no such custom of general election. The Opposite Party's case was that when there was no unanimity among the Myntries in the selec­tion of the Syiem, a general election had to be held on the votes of all the adult male members of the Elaka for the appointment of the Syiem. The petitioner challenged that there was no such custom of general election. But the High Court held that the existence or non-existence of the custom was a question of fact and an elaborate in­vestigation was necessary to find out whe­ther a particular custom existed or not and such a disputed matter could not be en­quired into in a writ petition. The peti­tioner's further contention that the custom which gave the right of franchise only to the male members of the Elaka was hit by Article 15 of the Constitution of India was rejected by the High Court on the ground that the petitioner was not the person whose right of franchise was affected. On the above findings, the High Court rejected the petition in Civil Rule No. 242 of 1963 (Assam). The facts of this case are also different from the facts of the case before us. 12. In the instant case we find that in pursuance of a Purwana issued by the Exe­cutive Committee, the election of the Syiem of Cherra was held on 14-3-1966 and the petitioner got the highest number of votes. The Chairman of the Durbar of the Myntries and Electors of Cherra Syiemship forward­ed the result of the election along with the true copy of the proceedings of the Durbar held on 14th March 1966 to the Chief Exe­cutive Member and to the Secretary, Exe­cutive Committee of the District Council. The Executive Committee, however, instead of publishing the result or placing the same before the District Council, issued a Pur­wana on 16-5-1966 for fresh election of the Syiem of Cherra. 13. From the notice dated 8th January 1966 issued by the Secretary of the Exe­cutive Committee, District Council, it is found that the election and appointment of the Syiem were subject to the approval of the District Council. Under Section 3 of the Act, all elections and appointments of Chiefs or Headmen shall be in accordance with the existing customs prevailing in the Elaka concerned. Under Section 4 of the Act, all appointments of Chiefs shall be sub­ject to the approval of the District Council. Under Section 3 of the Act, all elections and appointments of Chiefs or Headmen shall be in accordance with the existing customs prevailing in the Elaka concerned. Under Section 4 of the Act, all appointments of Chiefs shall be sub­ject to the approval of the District Council. Under Section 5, if any dispute arises re­garding any matter relating to the election of a Chief, the dispute shall within 30 days after the publication of the result of the election be referred by the party or parties concerned to the Executive Com­mittee for decision. An appeal against the decision of the Executive Committee shall lie to the Tribunal constituted for the pur­pose by the District Council and the deci­sion of the Tribunal shall be final. Any ap­peal before the Tribunal shall be filed within 30 days after the order of the Exe­cutive Committee is communicated to the party or parties concerned. 14. The petitioner's case in the instant case appears to be that since he has been elected as the Syiem by the electoral college, his election must be placed before the District Council for approval and appointment and the Executive Committee has no right to re­fuse to place the same before the District Council and order for fresh election. That being the position, it cannot be said that the petitioner has no legal right for the vindication of which he is entitled to move this writ petition. The petitioner has surely the right to come before this Court in a writ petition when his allegation is that the Executive Committee of the District Coun­cil, which is constituted under the Consti­tution has failed to exercise or has wrongly exercised a jurisdiction vested in them by refusing to place his election before the Dis­trict Council for approval and appointment and by ordering fresh election. The submis­sion that the petitioner has not been able to show any legal right for which he may approach this Court in a writ petition is, therefore, not acceptable and it is rejected. 15. The submis­sion that the petitioner has not been able to show any legal right for which he may approach this Court in a writ petition is, therefore, not acceptable and it is rejected. 15. On a careful examination of the scheme of the Act and the provisions there­of, I find that after the Syiem is elected by the electoral college in accordance with the existing customs prevailing in the Elaka con­cerned as provided in Section 3 of the Act, the Executive Committee, who are invested with the executive functions of the District Council under Rule 28(1) of the Assam Autonomous Districts (Constitution of Dis­trict Councils) Rules, 1951, must publish the election result and also place the same before the District Council for approval and appointment, as required under the provi­sions of the Act. If any dispute arises re­garding any matter relating to or connected with the election, the dispute shall, within 3 days after the publication of the re­sult of the election, be referred by the party or parties aggrieved to the Executive Committee. Any party aggrieved by the decision of the Executive Committee in such election petition may prefer an appeal before the Tribunal constituted for the pur­pose by the District, Council and the deci­sion of the Tribunal shall be final. It is, therefore, found that after any elec­tion is held, the result must be published by the Executive Committee so that the aggrieved party, if any, may file an election petition as provided under Section 5 of the Act within 30 days from the date of such publication. In the instant case, it appears that the Executive Committee, with­out publishing the result of the election and without any election petition, issued the impugned notice indirectly setting aside the election. Unless the result of the election is published and any election petition is filed before it, the Executive Committee has no jurisdiction whatsoever to interfere with the result of the election. In this view, the impugned notice issued by the Executive Committee is absolutely without jurisdic­tion and it must be quashed. The Execu­tive Committee also must place the election result before the District Council for appro­val and appointment as required by the Act. 16. Dr. In this view, the impugned notice issued by the Executive Committee is absolutely without jurisdic­tion and it must be quashed. The Execu­tive Committee also must place the election result before the District Council for appro­val and appointment as required by the Act. 16. Dr. Medhi, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has referred to the decision of this Court passed on 7-6-1966 in the case of Ka Heirtikiri v. U. Francis in Civil Rule No. 298 of 1964 (Assam). Relying on that decision, the petitioner also has filed a petition for amendment of the prayer in the petition. In that case, the High Court held that there could be no question of any approval by the District Council in regard to the Chiefs, who are to be elected and their election being only questionable under Section 5 of the Act by an election petition and in an appeal from the decision thereon and the Court held that election of the Syiem of Mylliem did not require the appro­val of the District Council. From the judg­ment it appears that the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of T. Cajee v. U. Jormanik Siem, AIR 1961 SC 276 , was not brought to the notice of their Lordships. In the case before the Supreme Court, an order of suspension of the Syiem of Mylliem was passed by the Executive Committee of the District Council. U. Jormanik, the Syiem of Mylliem, contended that he could not be removed from his office or suspend­ed by the Executive Committee of the Dis­trict Council and the order of the Chief Exe­cutive Member suspending him was illegal and ultra vires being against custom and usage relating to that matter and that the order of the Chief Executive Member was without jurisdiction as it was passed with­out the approval of the District Council and there was no emergency justifying the order. After discussing the relevant facts and law in the case, the Supreme Court held in that case that the Syiem of Mylliem was no more than an administrative officer ap­pointed by the District Council by virtue of its powers under paragraph 2 (4) of the Sixth Schedule and working under its con­trol, that paragraph 3 (1) of the Sixth Schedule was, in fact, something like a legislative list and enumerated the subjects m which the District Council was compe­tent to make laws and under paragraph 3 [I) (g) of the Sixth Schedule it had power to make laws with respect to the appoint­ment or succession of Chiefs or Headmen and this would naturally include the power to remove them. The Supreme Court also held that this power of appointment or re­moval to be exercised by the District Coun­cil could be made even without there being first a law to that effect and that para­graph 2 (4) provided that the administration of an autonomous district would vest in the District Council which was comprehensive enough to include all such executive powers as were necessary to be exercised for the purposes of the administration of the dis­trict. It was held by the Supreme Court that the District Council confirmed the ap­pointment of the Syiem of Mylliem (U. Jor­manik) in April 1953 and therefore in law the appointment was by the District Coun­cil. 17. In that Judgment; their Lordships of the Supreme Court also held that by that time a valid law, namely the United Khasi-Jaintia Hills Autonomous District (Appoint­ment and Succession of Chiefs and Head­men} Act, 1959 (No. H of 1959), came into force in October 1959 and it dealt with the appointment of Chiefs and Headmen as well as their removal and suspension (as a punishment) and the word 'Chief included a Syiem, a Lyngdoh, etc., and the respon­dent Syiem would, therefore, be a Chief within the meaning of the Act. 18. The impugned order of suspension in the case before the Supreme Court was passed before the United Khasi-Jaintia Hills Autonomous District (Appointment and Suc­cession of Chiefs and Headmen) Act, 1959, came into operation. The Supreme Court in the above judgment held that the Syiem was an administrative officer under the District Council even before the passing of the Act. 18. The impugned order of suspension in the case before the Supreme Court was passed before the United Khasi-Jaintia Hills Autonomous District (Appointment and Suc­cession of Chiefs and Headmen) Act, 1959, came into operation. The Supreme Court in the above judgment held that the Syiem was an administrative officer under the District Council even before the passing of the Act. So it is quite clear that after the passing of the said Act, the election and appointment of the Syiem will be governed by the provisions of the said Act. From the decision of the Supreme Court, it is quite clear that after the election of the Syiem or the Chief by the electoral college, the District Council has jurisdiction to appoint him as such for carrying out the administration. Only after being appointed by the District Council, the Syiem becomes an adminis­trative officer with the powers and jurisdic­tion vested in him. 19. On an examination of the scheme of the Act, it is found that the power of ap­pointment of Syiem has been kept with the District Council itself and this power can­not be exercised by the Executive Commit­tee. Though under Rule 28 (1) of the Assam Autonomous Districts (Constitution of District Councils) Rules, 1951, the execu­tive functions or the District Council have been vested in the Executive Committee, but under Rule 29 (2) (f) of the said Rules, all important appointments are to be refer­red to the District Council for final appro­val. That this power of appointment of the Syiem or the Chief has not been vested in the Executive Committee is also clear from the express provision in Section 11 of the Act, which authorises the Executive Committee to appoint the acting Chief. 20. Under Section 3 of the Act all elec­tions and appointments of Chiefs or Head­men shall be in accordance with the exist­ing customs prevailing in the Elaka concerned subject to the provisions of the Act and the rules made thereunder. From Aitchison's book on the subject, it is found that the custom of appointment of the Syiem by the appropriate authority is in existence for about one hundred years. At p. 84 of the book entitled "A Collection of Treaties, Engagements and Sanads" by C. U. Aitchison, Vol. 12, we find that in the year 1857 the Syiem of Sohrah (Cherra Raja) signed an agreement confirming the agreements made by his predecessors. At p. 84 of the book entitled "A Collection of Treaties, Engagements and Sanads" by C. U. Aitchison, Vol. 12, we find that in the year 1857 the Syiem of Sohrah (Cherra Raja) signed an agreement confirming the agreements made by his predecessors. In 1859 it was decided to require the execution of an agree­ment by each Chief on his succession and in return to confer a Sanad upon him. 21. The opening paragraph of the Sanad granted to U. Hajon Manik of Cherra in 1877 by Lord Lytton, Viceroy and Governor-General of India, reads as follows: "You, Hajon Manik, having been elected Syiem of the State of Cherra in the district or the Khasi and Jaintia Hills, this Sanad, ratifying your election and appointing you Syiem, is conferred upon you on the follow­ing conditions:" 22. In paragraph (2) q| the affidavit sworn by the Chief Executive Member of the District Council, it is stated as follows: ". .1 say that according to age-old cus­tom, usages and practice the Electoral Col­lege of the Syiemship used to nominate or elect a Syiem but the same required the re­cognition of the British Government through the Crown Representative, the Deputy Com­missioner, before he could function as such. So the Syiem, unless appointed by the Deputy Commissioner as Crown Repre­sentative and conferred with Sanads or Terms of appointment in recognition there­of could not function as such. With the coming into force of the Constitution of India the Paramountcy of the British Gov­ernment lapsed and the Syiemships became an integral part of the United Khasi-Jaintia Hills Autonomous District and the said power is vested in the District Council under the provisions of the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution. The United Khasi-Jaintia Hills Autonomous District (Appointment and Succession of Chiefs and Headmen) Act, 1959 has also retained the age-old custom and usages prevalent in the Elaka regarding the election and appointment of the Chief and all appointments of the Chiefs are sub­ject to the approval of the District Council". The petitioner in his Affidavit-in-Reply has denied the above statement. But a practice or procedure regarding the election and ap­pointment of the Syiem, which has been accepted and followed by all the parties concerned for about one hundred years must be deemed to have the sanctity of a long Standing usage or custom. 23. The petitioner in his Affidavit-in-Reply has denied the above statement. But a practice or procedure regarding the election and ap­pointment of the Syiem, which has been accepted and followed by all the parties concerned for about one hundred years must be deemed to have the sanctity of a long Standing usage or custom. 23. In view of the facts as found from Aitchison's book and the Sanad granted to the Syiem of the State of Cherra in 1877 by the Viceroy and Governor General of India and more particularly in view of the findings of the Supreme Court in AIR 1961 SC 276 , we are constrained to hold that after the elec­tion of Syiem or Chief the election has to be approved and an appointment has to be made by the District Council both in ac­cordance with the age-old custom and the provisions of the United Khasi-Jaintia Hills Autonomous District (Appointment and Suc­cession of Chiefs and Headmen) Act, 1959 (Act II of 1959). Without such approval and appointment, the Chief or the Syiem will not be an administrative officer under the Dis­trict Council for purposes of administration, which is vested in the District Council under the Sixth Schedule. 24 In the result, we hold that the Purwana dated 16-5-1966 issued by the Executive Committee is illegal and without jurisdiction and we quash the same. We further direct the Executive Committee of the District Council, Respondent No. 3, to publish the result of the election and also to submit the same before the District Council for approval and appointment. The petition is allowed and the rule is made absolute. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs. 25. S. K. DUTTA, C. J.: I agree. Petition allowed.