GOSWAMI, C. J.:- This Civil Rule is directed against two orders passed by the Judge, District Council Court, acting as an Election Appeal Tribunal under Section 5 of the United Khasi-Jaintla Hills Autonomous District (Appointment and Succession of Chiefs and Headmen) Act, 1959, hereinafter called 'the Act'. By the first order the Tribunal asked the petitioner to show cause against the objection taken regarding his election. The petitioner did not show any cause. By the second order the Tribunal fixed the case for evidence. 2. The facts material for the pur­pose of disposal of this Rule may be noted. The Executive Committee of the District Council, United Khasi-Jaintia Hills called upon the electors on the 6th of April, 1962 to elect a Syiem in secession to U Jor Manik, the previous Syiem of Mylliem. The electors by an overwhelming majority elected the petitioner as the Syiem of Mylliem. The result of the said election was approved of and published by the District Council and the customary Sanad was granted to him and he has been functioning as such since 17th May, 1963. The respondent No. 2 raised a dis­pute regarding the said election before the Executive Committee of the District Council. The parties on being asked filed their written statements in support of their respective claims and also docu­ments. The Executive Committee, after hearing the parties, did not interfere with the election by its order dated 19th January, 1965. The respondent No. 2 thereafter preferred an appeal against the aforesaid order of the Executive Committee under Section 5 of the Act. The District Council appointed res­pondent No. 1 as a Single Member Elec­tion Appeal Tribunal to hear and dis­pose of the said appeal. The Tribunal called upon the petitioner to file his written statement. The petitioner ques­tioned the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to call for written statement from the petitioner. The Tribunal overruled the objection and passed the first impugned order, namely: "The Syiem will show cause on 8-8-66." The petitioner showed cause and the Tribunal passed the second impugned order to the following effect: "Both the parties appeared. Fix 19-12-66 for evidence by the appellant." It is these two orders set out above which the petitioner challenges by this application under Article 226 of the Con­stitution. 3. Fix 19-12-66 for evidence by the appellant." It is these two orders set out above which the petitioner challenges by this application under Article 226 of the Con­stitution. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there is no pro­vision to warrant the procedure adopted by the Appeal Tribunal authorising it to ask for a statement showing cause and also to take evidence at an appel­late stage. The Tribunal was bound to decide the matter after hearing the parties on the materials already placed by them before the Executive Commit­tee. 4. Since the matter is of some importance and affects the procedure of Election Appeal Tribunal in cases of this nature, which may be of frequent occur­rence, we issued notice to the Advocate General, Meghalaya. to ascertain the views of the District Council in the matter, so that we are in a position to decide the same after hearing all the parties. The learned Advocate General appeared and submitted that the Elec­tion Appeal Tribunal is free to follow its own procedure provided it confines itself to the subject-matter of reference and conducts itself within the four cor­ners of the provisions of the Act. 5. While dealing with the ques­tion raised in this application, it is necessary to notice a few sections of the Act: Section 3: "Elections and Appointments of Chiefs and Headmen:- Subject to the provision of this Act and the Rules made there­under all elections and appointments of Chiefs or Headmen shall be in accord­ance with the existing customs prevail­ing in the Elaka concerned." Section 4: "Confirmation of Chiefs:- All ap­pointments of Chiefs shall be subject to the approval of the District Council which may confirm such appointments under terms and conditions which it may by rules from time to time adopt. X X X X XXX X." Section 5: "Disputes Regarding Election of Chiefs:- If any dispute arises regarding any matter relating to, or connected with, 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 a tribunal constituted for the purpose by the District Council and the decision of the tribunal shall be final. An appeal against the decision of the Executive Committee shall lie to a 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." It is clear that the dispute to an election of the Syiem has to be lodged first before the Executive Committee for its decision. This appears to be the first election tribunal in that sense. An ap­peal is provided against the decision of the Executive Committee to a Tribunal constituted for the purpose and the Tri­bunal's decision is final. No express procedure has been laid down for trial of the election dispute before the Exe­cutive Committee or before the Appeal Tribunal. At an earlier stage of the matter, the Executive Committee had decided that it would examine the re­cords and documents filed by the part­ies and hear them and then decide the dispute. The Executive Committee also observed that was the existing custom and practice in cases of this kind before it. The Executive Committee therefore posted the case for hearing without framing any issues and without taking any evidence. This order was passed by the Executive Committee on 27-11-1964 after hearing lawyers on behalf of the parties. The respondent No. 2 moved the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution against the order of the Executive Committee set out above and the High Court on 13-1-1965 summarily rejected the same. The Executive Com­mittee thereafter on 19-1-1965 after hear­ing the lawyers for both parties reject­ed the election petition objecting to the election of the petitioner. Thereafter an appeal was taken as noted above and out of which the present proceeding be­fore this Court is arising. 6. The principal point that arises for consideration in this Civil Rule is whether the Appeal Tribunal could act as an original Tribunal and proceed to take evidence in the case. Although in this case the Judge, District Council Court, has been appointed as a single member Tribunal to hear the appeal under Section 5 of the Act. it is an ad hoc Appeal Tribunal for the purpose. Although in this case the Judge, District Council Court, has been appointed as a single member Tribunal to hear the appeal under Section 5 of the Act. it is an ad hoc Appeal Tribunal for the purpose. It is apparent that the Appeal Tribunal, in absence of any procedure laid down in the Act, is formulating its own proce­dure for hearing the matter in conformity with the principles of natural justice. The entire objection of the petitioner is to the procedure adopted by the Appeal Tribunal in the course of hearing the matter placed before it. As at present advised, we are of opinion, that this is not the stage where this court would like to interfere with the proceedings before the Appeal Tribunal in exercise of its powers under Art. 226 of the Constitution. 7. In the result, the application Is rejected and Rule Nisi discharged. There will be no order as to costs. D. M. SEN, J.:- 8. I agree. Application rejected.