Lahiri, J.:- This is an application and/or appeal directed against imposition of collective fine against the villagers of Rolan New purported to be under Rule 14 of Rules for the Administra­tion of Justice and Police in Nagaland, hereinafter 'the Rules'. 2. The impugned order of imposition of collective fine of Rs. 25.000/- on the villagers reads as follows :- ORDER Whereas on the 27th day of May, 1978, one L.P. School teacher from Rengmipani village was kidnapped by some criminals and subsequently he was killed and buried within the New Rolan village area. And whereas the villagers of Rolan New failed to assist the local Administration in prevention of heinous crime of kidnapping and murder of the said teacher and filled to inform the local authority about the commission of the said offence and concealed it, I Shri S. B Chattri, Deputy Commissioner, Wokha do hereby, under the provision of the Rules for the Administration of Justice and Police in Nagaland, do hereby impose a collective flue of Rs. 25,000/-(Ruppes twenty-five thousand) only on New Rolan village and further order that the said fine b: paid within a period of three days f:om the 30th day of May, 1978. Given under my signature at New Rolan village on 29th day of May, 1978. Sd/- Illegible (S. B Chettri) Deputy Commissioner, Wokha, Camp : New Rolan." 3. The purport of the order is (hat the villagers of Rolan New Village having had the knowledge of kidnapping, murder and burial of the dead body of one I.P. School teacher had failed to inform the local authority about the commission of the offence and thereby concealed the commission of the offe­nce and these sets or failure of duty or inactions amounted to violation of the provision of Rule 14 of I he Rules and the villagers were imposed collective fine of Rs. 25,000/-. The villagers were directed to pay the fine within three days from the 30'h day of May, 1978, It appears from the records that the learned Deputy Commissioner, Wokha, visited the village in question on 29th day of May, 1978 itself. There is nothing to show as to whether he had made any enquiry into the matter relating to the alleged acts of commission of the villag­ers. There is nothing to show as to whether he had made any enquiry into the matter relating to the alleged acts of commission of the villag­ers. There is nothing to show in the order as to who were the persons to inform the learned Diputy Commissioner about the failure of duty, inaction or suppression of commission of offence by the villagers. It does not appear from the order itself that any resident of the village was given any oppor­tunity to meet the allegation. 4. It will appear from Rule 14 of the Rules that the inhabitants of the village were bound to aid the regular police and village authorities when required to do so for the main­tenance of order or the apprehension of offenders. Any person or persons failing to do so is or are liable to be fined to be adjudged, amongst others, by the Deputy Commissioner. Mauzandar, GBs, Chief, Headman of a Khel or other Chief Village Authority are empowered to impose fine to the extent it or he is compel to award or impose fine in criminal cases tried by it or him. Deputy Commissioner is competent to impose fine beyond the amount which the officers aforesaid are authorised to impose, provided he considers the same to be necessary. The Officer and/or the Depuly Commissioner is required to enquire and find out the particular person blamable for failure to do it and if it cannot be ascertained the liability for pay­ment of the fine would fall on the mauzadar, gaonburas, chief, headman of Khel or chief village authority. However, if It appears that the community as a whole is blamable or blame­worthy and the particular 'offender' cannot be discovered, a fine may be imposed upon the community by the Deputy Commissioner. 5. We are of the clear views that before Rule 14 of the Rules is pressed into service and operated upon, the offender must be given some opportunity Jo meet the allegations. The offenders must be informed about the allegations and also the reasons on which the allegations are grounded. There must be some sort of enquiry, though it may rot be that elaborate as conducted in criminal case or civil suit. There must be a sitting of the villagers in the village compound and the villagers may be explained the wrong or default commi­tted by them. There must be some sort of enquiry, though it may rot be that elaborate as conducted in criminal case or civil suit. There must be a sitting of the villagers in the village compound and the villagers may be explained the wrong or default commi­tted by them. The persons who bring home the allega­tions against the community or offenders are normally required to be produced and their statements should be heard in presence of the offenders or villagers who must be given opportunity to ask questions to the informers and to rebut the allegations. In there cases where examination of informers in the presence of the offenders or villagers is not considered desirable or is regarded as fraught with danger to the safety of the informer?, the Deputy Commissioner may not produce the informers by recording his reasons for doing so, in which cases the statement of the informers must be made available and the villagers must be given opportunity to rebut the same. After such a summary enquiry or some other enquiry which is just and appropriate, the Deputy Commissioner must be satisfied that the allegations made against the villagers have some substance. On the basis of such satisfaction, he must hold same persons as offenders. If he fails to find out any specific offender, the responsibility under the rule squarely falls on responsible persons of the village, such as, mauzadar, gaonburas, chief, headman of the khel or other chief village authority. However, if it appears to the Deputy Commissioner that the entire community at large including these officers are to be blamed and the particular offender or offenders cannot be discovered, then and then only collective fine may be imposed upon the community. 6. It does not appear from the records of the case or from the impugned order that there was any enquiry about the allegations in the presence of the villager?. It does not appear that the minimum requirement of protection, which is afforded by the principle of natural justice in such cases, was followed in the instant case. The villagers were never informed as to the substance of the allegation. It does not appear that the source of the information was divulged or the author who had reported against the villagers was examined in the presence of the villagers. The villagers were never informed as to the substance of the allegation. It does not appear that the source of the information was divulged or the author who had reported against the villagers was examined in the presence of the villagers. Collective fine upon a community and to the extent of such a large amount is too drastic. Ordinary norm of justice, equity and good conscience must be followed in a proceeding under Rule 14 of the Rules. We do not find even on search of the record the names of the persons who had made the allegations against the villagers, not to speak of their statements being on record. In the circumsta­nces, we are bound to accept the contention of the petitioners as made by Sri R. K. Singh, the learned counsel, that the order was made in the absence of any material before the Deputy Commissioner. There is no material to show as to why the Deputy Commissioner could not find out the particular persons blamable. It also does not appear why on failure to ascertain those persons the village authorities were left out. There is no material whatsoever in the record to show why the community as a whole was to be blamed for the alleged failure to per­form the mandates of Rule 14. 7. Sri Zelre Angami, learned Public Prosecutor submits that all the villagers are duty-bound under Rule 14 to per­form the requirements of the said Rule. We entirely agree with the contention made by the learned counsel. The learned counsel further submits that the Deputy Commissioner is the competent authority to adjudge the liability and his satisfac­tion was enough to uphold the order. In this regard we are of the view that the satisfaction which is required to be ful­filled under Rule 14 is not of subjective character but objec­tive. According to us the learned Deputy Commissioner ought to have given the reasons for his satisfaction in the order, and the record must have shown to us that there were materi­als before the learned Deputy Commissioner to enable him to come to the conclusion to which he had arrived. Rule 14 cannot be interpreted to have made the Deputy Commissioner a despot or to have given him uncontrolled power to be exercised at his pleasure. 8. Rule 14 cannot be interpreted to have made the Deputy Commissioner a despot or to have given him uncontrolled power to be exercised at his pleasure. 8. In view of the quantum of the collective fine, the imposition of such fine of the entire villagers, absence of the source of the requisite information, and in view of the complete violation of principles of natural justice, we are constrained to hold that the impugned order is not sustainable. We accordingly set aside and quash the same. However, the setting aside of this order shall not debar the Deputy Commissioner to hold fresh enquiry and proceed under Rule 14 of the Rules in the light of the observations made above. The petition stands allowed as aforesaid.