A, P. Singh, J. - Epilogue: Democracy is the hall mark of civilization. Only those who believe in autocratic rule shun democracy. Even when our country was ruled by the foreigners (the British Monarch) the basic democratic rights of the people were preserved by letting them keep their house in the manner they best thought of. However, some inbuilt guidelines were provided for the self rule. It was this concept of democracy which gave birth to local self Govt all over the world including in our country. In England, which is supposed to be the mother of democracy, the principle of self rule was in vogue from the olden times. In India however, this system though being in vogue unofficially from times immemorial it came to get the Governmental sanction in nineteen century when Panchayat and Municipal laws were enacted by the British rulers allowing the local people to administer their local governing bodies through their own representatives chosen by them by direct election. 2. The job which mainly was allotted to such local Governmental units was of varying nature depending upon the size of the local unit and nature of its require­ments. In big cities the job entrusted to these Governmental units mainly were : (a) Provision of roads and street lights, (b) Provision for scavenging and sanitary facilities, (c) Town planning including permission of building constructions and demolition of dangerous buildings, (d) Provision of medical and health facilities, (e) Provision for parks and play grounds, (f) Maintenance of Birth and Death records, (g) Animal ponds and care of stray animals, (h) Provision for clean potable drinking water, (i) Provision of burning ghats and burial grounds for the disposal of dead bodies, and (j) Provision for elementary and senior basic educational institutions, etc • like provision of hats, bazars, markets parking places etc. 3. For meeting the required expenses, the local bodies were also authorised to impose and collect taxes. The taxes which could be imposed by it being house and water tax, tolls, market fee, scavenging fee and fees for permission to make construction including fees for issue of licences etc. Apart from this, the State Govts too grave financial assistance to these local self Govt units so as to enable them to defray their expenses which mostly related to employees salaries. 4. Apart from this, the State Govts too grave financial assistance to these local self Govt units so as to enable them to defray their expenses which mostly related to employees salaries. 4. The management of these local self Govt units was in the hands of Municipal Councilors called members or members of the Town or Municipal Committees or Corporations etc. These are the names which are assigned to the representatives who were elected by the tax payers from a particular area of the town, city or metropolis in the municipality in whose hands was entrusted the administration of the local self units by whatever name called. The town, cities or the metropolis of which a particular local body was constituted was divided in small administrative units known as wards and each ward, depending on its size and population, was allotted one or two representatives to represent the voters of that ward in the local body etc. 5. Item 5 of the State List in the Seventh Schedule provided power to the State Legislatures to make laws in relation to local Govt including for the "constitution of Municipal Corporations, improvement trusts, District Boards and other local authorities for local self Govt or for village administration. 6. Initially the framers of the Constitution left the matters concerning the pattern of the local bodies to be decided by the respective State Legislatures, therefore no legislative restrictions were imposed on the powers of the State Legislatures in the matter of enactment of the laws under Entry 5 of List II. The power under the said entry however was subject to the general legislative limitations such as that the Legislature would not exceed the limits of its legislative power by transgressing or overlapping on another subject and, that the law enacted by it conformed to the Fundamental Rights enumerated in Part III of the Constitution and too other constitutional provisions. In due course of time, these restrictions of general nature were found to be illusory and need was felt to give constitutional guarantees to the people in relation to the format of the local self Governmental units. In due course of time, these restrictions of general nature were found to be illusory and need was felt to give constitutional guarantees to the people in relation to the format of the local self Governmental units. It was for realisation of this pressing need that Parts IX and IXA were introduced in the Constitution by the Parliament through Seventy Third Amendment of the Constitution known as Constitution (Seventy Third Amendment) Act, 1992, like Parts V and VI of the Constitution which deals respectively with format of Union Govt and the State Govt. Parts IX and IXA, deal with the format of local self Govts in rural and urban areas of the country. With the introduction of detailed provisions in Part IX and IXA a constitutional recognition has been given for the necessity of local Governmental bodies which are required to be formed in a particular way for this discharge of the stated responsibilities coupled with the power conferred on such local self Governmental units for imposing and recovering taxes as well. This case : 7. In the entire State of Meghalaya, which was carved out as a seperate State from the State of Assam in the year 1972 by section 5 of the North Eastern Areas (Reorganisation) Act, 1971 there is only one city having a local self Governmental unit with the name Municipal Board, Shillong. The election of members, constitution of the Board and governance of the said municipality was governed by Assam Municipal Act, 1923 which came to be substituted by 1956 Act with the same name. The said Act still holds the field on having been adopted by the Meghalaya Legislature with certain modifications in that Act. Formation of the State of Meghalaya was proceeded by conferment of Automomous Status to the areas which are now comprised in the State of Meghalaya by section 3 of Assam Reorganisation (Meghalaya) Act, 1969, except for the areas which were comprised in the Cantonment and Municipality of Shillong. Surprisingly since after the year 1967 when the last election of the municipality was held, no election of Municipal Board, Shillong has been held and officers of the State Govt are holding the reigns of the Shillong Municipality since the year 1973, when the term of the last Board expired. Surprisingly since after the year 1967 when the last election of the municipality was held, no election of Municipal Board, Shillong has been held and officers of the State Govt are holding the reigns of the Shillong Municipality since the year 1973, when the term of the last Board expired. Since after 1973 the administration of the Board is being carried out in the same manner as a department of the State Govt. It was in this back ground that Sri Pawan Sharma and Sri Bishwajeet Barua, the two enlightened men, being residents of the Shillong Municipality and registered as voters in the said municipality who are petitioners herein, raised their voice by filing writ petition being CR No.88 (SH) of 1997 under Article 226 of the Constitution by way of public interest praying for an order for commanding the Govt of Meghalaya to hold the overdue election of Shillong Municipality. 8. The State Govt filed its counter affidavit in the said writ petition. In its reply it admitted that the election of the Shillong Municipality was overdue as no election had been held since after the 1967 elections. The Govt however presented before the Court some difficulties which according to it were responsible for the undue delay in the holding of the overdue municipal elections. These difficulties according to the Govt were regarding the completion of certain formalities by it for the purpose of inclusion of more areas within the Shillong Municipal limits with a view to provide municipal facilities to the people living in those areas as well for which a Sub Committee had already been set up by the Govt and according to the Govt, the Sub Committee was likely to give its report to the Govt by the year end whereafter elections of the Shillong Municipality were certainly to be held. The Senior Govt Advocate for the State of Meghalaya in the course of his submissions also emphasised that the task of preparation of the electoral roll, which was the first necessary step, before holding of the elections may itself take sufficiently long time as after 1967 the electoral roll of the municipality had not been prepared. The Senior Govt Advocate for the State of Meghalaya in the course of his submissions also emphasised that the task of preparation of the electoral roll, which was the first necessary step, before holding of the elections may itself take sufficiently long time as after 1967 the electoral roll of the municipality had not been prepared. The learned Govt Advocate further emphasised in that case that the election of the Meghalaya Assembly which were due in February 1998 had to be given precedence over the municipal elections, hence holding of the elections of the Municipal Board was not practicable until the month of April, 1998. In view of the statement made in the Court by Sri Anil Sarma, Senior Govt Advocate this Court by its order dated 16.7.97 directed the Govt of Meghalaya to hold elections of Municipal Board, Shillong by April, 1998 after preparing fresh electoral roll. The order clarified that whether or not fresh areas were added to the already existing areas of Municipal Board, Shillong by the stated date, the election in any case had to be held within the time limit set up in the order for it. The Govt of Meghalaya however filed an application for the enlargement of time by one year for enabling it to comply with the directions of the Court for holding the municipal election. The application was considered by one of the two Hon'ble Judges (Hon'ble Mr. Justice NS Singh) who constituted Division Bench which had decided the earlier Civil Rule on 16.7.97. Learned Single Judge by his order dated 23.3.98 granted three months further time to the State Govt for holding the election of Shillong Municipal Board. Thus as per the modified order of this Court dated 23.3.98 election of Municipal Board, Shillong was to be completed by 22.6.98. In its application seeking enlargement of time for holding election of the Board, Meghalaya Govt came with following difficulties which according to it ruled out the chances of holding the election within the time which had been fixed by this Court in its earlier order 16.7.97. The following grounds were stated: (a) Several objections from different quarters had been raised against the preliminary electoral rolls which had been published in different areas of the municipality pointing out large scale discrepancies and irregularities in a number of wards. The following grounds were stated: (a) Several objections from different quarters had been raised against the preliminary electoral rolls which had been published in different areas of the municipality pointing out large scale discrepancies and irregularities in a number of wards. (b) Association of Headman-of Rangbah Shnong have raised objections against defects in the preparations of electoral rolls and delimitation of ward. (c) The Govt having considered the objections and defects pointed out has decided that there was bonafide need to re-examine and modify the delimitation of wards correctly and recast the electoral rolls and suitably amend the Municipalities Act, inter alia providing for reservation of seats for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and the women according to the principles of Articles 243T of the Constitution of India for doing all these sufficiently large time of one year was needed to enable the governmental authorities to hold elections properly, (emphasis supplied) 9. In para 5 of the present writ petition, petitioner have stated that an election schedule was published for holding the election of Shillong Municipality which was fixed for 17.4.98. As per the election programme published by respondent No. 1, following election programme was fixed. 1. Date of publication of preliminary electoral Roll: 5.3.98. 2. Time for filing claims and objections : 5.3.98 to 18.3.98. 3. Date for disposal of objections and claims : 18.3.98 by 4.30 PM 4. Publication of final electoral roll: 19.3.98. 5. Date and time for filing nomination papers : between 11 AM to 3 PM on 20.3.98, 21.3.98, and 24.3.98. 6. Date of scrutiny of nomination papers : 26.3.98 at 10 AM and onwards. 7. Date of publication of names of nominated candidates: after4 PM on 26.3.98. 8. Last date for the withdrawal of the nominations : 30.3.98 upto 3 PM. 9. Publication of list of validity contesting candidates : 30.3.98 after 3 PM. 10. Date of publication of polling stations : 2.4.98. 11. Date and time for poll: 17.4.98 between 7 AM to 4 PM. 12. Date of counting and declaration of results : 18.4.98 from 8 AM. 10. On 4.3.98 the Deputy Commissioner, East Khasi Hills District, within whose territorial jurisdiction, Municipal Board of Shillong falls in his capacity assigned to him by the Govt as Election Commissioner vide his order dated 4.3.98 had also appointed Addl District Magistrates for conducting the said election in different wards of the Municipal Board. 11. 10. On 4.3.98 the Deputy Commissioner, East Khasi Hills District, within whose territorial jurisdiction, Municipal Board of Shillong falls in his capacity assigned to him by the Govt as Election Commissioner vide his order dated 4.3.98 had also appointed Addl District Magistrates for conducting the said election in different wards of the Municipal Board. 11. As per the above order, for Wards 1 to 6 falling in Laitumkhrah and Malki, Smti D. Syiem was nominated, for Wards 7 to 11 falling in Police Bazar, Jail Road and European Ward areas, Sri EP Khorbhit was appointed. For Ward Nos 12 to 16 falling in Mawkhar and Jaiaw areas, Sri T. Dkhar was appointed, for Wards 17 to 21 falling in SE Mawkhar and Mission Compound, Sunny Hills, Garkhana and Mawprem Sri F. Kharlyngohwas appointed and for Ward Nos 23 to 27 falling in Rilbong, Krenchs Trace, Laban and Lumparing Sri W. Khilling was appointed. 12. These facts stated by petitioners in the writ petition have not been denied by respondents in their affidavit-of-opposition, which shall hereafter be called CA which they have filed in reply to the averments of the petitioners in the writ petition. It has further been alleged by the petitioners that respondent No. 2, the Governor of Meghalaya has promulgated an Ordinance in exercise of his legislative powers under Article 213 of the Constitution of India for drastically changing the very basic system of the local self Govt of the Shillong Municipality. As per the provisions of the said Ordinance which seeks to amend the Assam Act of 1956, the election of Municipal Commissioners of the Shillong Municipality instead of being held directly as per the provision of the Assam Municipal Act of 1956 will be held from an Electoral College often voters who are to be selected from amongst Rangbah Shnong of local Darbars and their office bearers, the Chairman or President of local civil welfare association and their office bearers having head office in the concerned wards and by nomination of three women Commissioners to be made by the Govt in consultation with women organisation having head quarters in any part of Shillong Municipality. 13. According to petitioners, the Ordinance totally rules out exercise of voting right by persons who under section 14ofthe Assam Municipal Act, 1956 possessed it for electing Municipal Commissioners of the Shillong Municipality for their respective wards. 13. According to petitioners, the Ordinance totally rules out exercise of voting right by persons who under section 14ofthe Assam Municipal Act, 1956 possessed it for electing Municipal Commissioners of the Shillong Municipality for their respective wards. Though the said provision confers voting rights to everyone of full age of 21 years provided he : (a) is a citizen of India; (b) is a resident within municipal limits for a minimum period of one year from the prescribed date; (c) occupied a holding which is assessed to tax under section 6 of the Act, or (d) is an inhabitant in such holding. But without deleting that provision from the Act the right conferred therein has beerr taken away by creation of an Electoral College. 14. Petitioners have complained that the Ordinance has been promulgated with the malafide intention of depriving a large section of non-tribals residing in the areas comprised in the Municipality of Shillong from choosing/electing their/ own representatives in the Municipal Board of Shillong, therefore, the system evolved by the impugned Ordinance according to the petitioners militates against the very basic concept of local self Govt by the people residing in the areas which are comprised in the Municipality of Shillong for whose benefits it has been constituted under 1956 Act. 15. It has been alleged that with the constitutional guarantees provided for the format and the system of local self Govt through Municipal Boards in Part DCA of the Constitution, it is not permissible for the State Legislature of Meghalaya or for that matter to the Governor of Meghalaya to deny the people who are inhabitants of the areas comprised in the Shillong Municipality to elect their own representative for constituting the Board to administer their affairs in the manner which is in keeping with the provisions of Part IXA of the Constitution. Therefore, petitioners want this Court to quash the Meghalaya Ordinance No. 1 of 1998 and make a direction to the Govt of Meghalaya to hold the overdue elections of Shillong Municipal Board in accordance with the provision of 1956 Act and as per the constitutional mandate contained in Part IXA of the Constitution. 16. Therefore, petitioners want this Court to quash the Meghalaya Ordinance No. 1 of 1998 and make a direction to the Govt of Meghalaya to hold the overdue elections of Shillong Municipal Board in accordance with the provision of 1956 Act and as per the constitutional mandate contained in Part IXA of the Constitution. 16. In their counter affidavit the Govt of Meghalaya has inter alia maintained as follows: (a) Article 243Q, 243R and other Articles of Part IXA of the Constitution do not apply to the tribal areas of the State of Meghalaya; however for any election to the Municipal Board in the State the provisions of Meghalaya Municipal Act will apply, in view of Article 243ZC. The tribal areas are governed by the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution in respect of Town Committee and other matters. (See paras 4 and 9 of the CA) (b) The State Govt had taken a policy decision to amend the Municipal Act to provide the manner of holding the election to the Shillong Municipal Board, because of the enrolment and otherwise of the local traditional Darbars and other local civil welfare bodies in the civic affairs of different Municipal Commissioners may be held by Electoral Colleges comprisiong of Rangbah Shnongs, Headman and other office bearers who themselves are elected to those respective bodies. (Para 6) (emphasis supplied) 17. From what has been stated in the counter affidavit filed by the State Govt, it is clearly established that the election of Municipal Commissioners or Municipal Board is to be held through an indirect process in which voters who have a right of vote under section 14 of the 1956 Act, have no role to play for electing the Municipal Commissioners of the respective wards of Shillong Municipality. The new arrangement under the provisions of the impugned Ordinance, says the State Govt, has been made in keeping with the demand of the Rangbah Shnong and local Darbars of the tribals people who are resident within the areas comprised in the Shillong Municipality. 18. The new arrangement under the provisions of the impugned Ordinance, says the State Govt, has been made in keeping with the demand of the Rangbah Shnong and local Darbars of the tribals people who are resident within the areas comprised in the Shillong Municipality. 18. Meghalaya was earlier formed part of the.State of Assam, it was for this reason that in the Constitution special provisions was made for the tribals who overwhelmingly inhabitant the State, so as the enable them to provide their own Govt except for the areas which were comprised in Cantonment and Municipality of Shillong, by means of Autonomous District Councils and Autonomous Regional Councils for which provisions have been made in Article 244 occuring in Part X read with the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution. The Constitution in the Sixth Schedule provided for constitution of Autonomous District Councils for each of the three tribal areas mentioned in Part II of the Table appended to Para 20 of that Schedule. Where different Scheduled Tribes were to be found in a tribal district, in that case the Governor had been empowered to constitute autonomous region after dividing the area in a tribal district which is inhabited by tribals who happen to be different from the tribals of the district concerned. However in the State there are only 3 tribal districts and three Autonomous District Councils. So far Autonomous Regional Councils have not been constituted in any of the Autonomous District Councils throughout the State. 19. There are still numerous Kingdoms in the State of Meghalaya which are ruled in a democratic style by Syiems, Dolois and Village Headman through the aid and assistance of their respective Darbars. The constitution of Darbars, the election of Syiems, Dolois and Village Heaman etc is governed by the rules framed by the respective Autonomous District Council who exercises control over their appointment, removal and functioning. The Autonomous District Council of each of the three tribal districts, namely (1) Khasi Hills District, (2) The Jaintia Hills District, and (3) The Garo Hills District have been provided with the legislative power in the matters relating to subjects which have been enumerated in Para 3 of Sixth Schedule. The Autonomous District Council of each of the three tribal districts, namely (1) Khasi Hills District, (2) The Jaintia Hills District, and (3) The Garo Hills District have been provided with the legislative power in the matters relating to subjects which have been enumerated in Para 3 of Sixth Schedule. Para 4 empowers these administrative units with power to set up Courts for administration of justice in their respective district; the above power included power to provide for constitution of different tiers of Courts, the procedure to be followed by the Courts in the dispensation of justice, execution of orders and other matters connected therewith. The Rules can however be framed with the previous approval of the Governor, The power of High Court of the State and the Supreme Court have however been saved in the matter of dispensation of justice in the tribal areas of the State too. The Governor has been empowered by Para 5 to require the Courts of District Councils, in certain matters to be governed by the procedure provided in Civil Procedure Code, 1908 and in the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 otherwise these Codes are not applicable for regulating the functioning of District Councils Courts. Para 6 empowers the District Councils to establish and run primary educational institutions. Para 7 empowers them to create their funds, to manage it and for that they have been conferred the power under Paras 8 and 9 to collect and impose taxes and fees and royality for extracting of minerals etc and fees for granting licence. The power of framing rules in this regard too is subject to the approval of the Governor. Paras 12 and 12A relate to application of the laws made by State Legislature and by the Parliament. Paras 13 to 19 deal with miscellaneous provisions including power of the Governor to dissolve District Councils and transitional provisions etc. Para 20, on which much emphasis has been placed by learned counsel for both parties, defines what is the meaning of the word 'tribal area' and what .are the areas, which for certain purposes, which have been specifically mentioned in the provision of clause (2) of these para, will not be treated as tribal areas, notwithstanding the fact that those areas too are tribal, areas for all other purposes. A correct and proper understanding of this para is also necessary in view of the provisions of Article 243ZC in Part IXA of the Constitution which provides that the provisions of the said part will have no application to the tribal areas. It is on the strength of the above mentioned provision of Article 243ZC that the State Govt has put up its defence in an attempt to save the impugned Ordinance from the challenge of ultra vires of the provisions of Part IXA which has been posed to it by petitioners, obviously if the areas which are comprised in the Municipality of Shillong are covered by the word 'tribal area' occurring in Article 243ZC theri any other provisions of Part IXA will not apply to the municipality. 20. In this background it is necessary to find out the correct import of the word 'tribal area' which has been dealt by Para. 20 of the Sixth Schedule. The relevant part of the para, reads as follows ; “20. Tribal Areas - (1) The areas specified in Parts I, II, IIA and III of the table below shall respectively be the tribal areas within the State of Assam, the State of Meghalaya, the State of Tripura and the State of Mizoram. (2) Any reference in Part I, Part II, oir Part III of the table below to any district shall be construed as a reference to the territories comprised within the Autonomous District of that name existing immediately before the day appointed under clause (b) of section 2 of the North-Eastern Areas (Reorganisation) Act. 1971 : Provided that for the purpose of clauses (e) and (f) of sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 3, paragraph 4, paragraph 5, paragraph 6, sub-paragraph (2), clauses (a), (b) and (d) of sub-paragraph (3) and sub-paragraph (4) of paragraph 8 and clause (d) of sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 10 of this Schedule, no part of the are'a comprised within the municipality of Shillong shall be deemed to be within the Khasi Hills District. (3) The reference in Part IIA in the table below to the "Tripura Tribal Areas District" shall be construed as a reference to the territory comprising the tribal areas specified in the First Schedule to the Tripura Tribal Autonomous District Council Act, 1979. TABLE PART II 1. Khasi Hills District 2. Jaintia Hills District 3. The Garo Hills District." 21. (3) The reference in Part IIA in the table below to the "Tripura Tribal Areas District" shall be construed as a reference to the territory comprising the tribal areas specified in the First Schedule to the Tripura Tribal Autonomous District Council Act, 1979. TABLE PART II 1. Khasi Hills District 2. Jaintia Hills District 3. The Garo Hills District." 21. A reading of Para 20 would show that the tribal districts of Khasi Hills District, the Jayantia Hills District and Garo Hills District which are mentioned in Para II of the table above are apparently the three tribal areas which are over­whelmingly inhabited respectively by the tribesmen of Khasis, Jaintia and Garos respectively. For a correct identification of the exact areas one has to refer to the date appointed under clause (b) of section 2 of North Eastern Areas (Reorganisation) Act, 1971 as according to caluse (2) the territories comprised in the districts before that date will alone be tribal areas of that particular tribal district. Section 5 of 1971 Act provides for the formation of separate State of Meghalaya with effect from the appointed date and the new State as per clause (a) and (b) was to be comprised of the: "(a) territories which immediately before the apppointed date were comprised in the Autonomous State of Meghalaya formed under section 3 of the Assam Reorganisation (Meghalaya) Act, 1969; and (b) so much of the territories comprised within the Cantonment and Municipality of Shillong which did not form part of that Autonomous State, (emphasis supplied)" 22. The Assam Reorganisation (Meghalaya) Act, 1969 by section 3 allowed formation of Autonomous State of Meghalaya, within the State of Assam and the said Autonomous State was to be comprised of United Khasi Jaintia Hills District as described in clause (2) of Para 20 of the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution (exclusive of the proviso thereto), but excluding the areas transferred to Mikir Hills Autonomous District and the Garo Hills District which is specified in Part A of the table appended to Para 20 of the Sixth Schedule. In short it stated the tribal areas in the State of Meghalaya were to be only those areas which were comprised in the three autonomous districts which formed part of the Autonomous State of Meghalaya as per the provisions of section 3 of 1969 referred to above, hence the areas which were comprised in the Shillong Cantonment and Shillong Municipality were not the tribal areas at all. This position is simply clarified by clause (b) of section 5 of 1971 Act. 23. Having understood the meaning of tribal areas as defined in clause (!) and (2) of Para 20 of the Sixth Schedule it is now necessary to find out what is the purpose and scope of the proviso which has been appended to clause (2). 24. Proviso to clause (2) states that for the purpose stated therein the areas which are comprised within the-Municipality of Shillong shall not be deemed to be within the Khasi Hills District. The real import of the proviso can be understood only with reference to clause (2) of that para wherefrom it has already been found out that the district mentioned in Part II of the table appended to the para will be known with reference to the territories which were comprised in those district in the Autonomous State of Meghalaya. Reading 1969 Act, 1971 Act and Para 20 of the Sixth Schedule together a confusion appears to arise regarding the areas in respect of which Autonomous State of Meghalaya was formed under section 3 of 1969 Act. Though in that Act no exception has apparently been made for the exclusion of Municipal and Cantonment areas of Shillong from the Autonomous State of Meghalaya but a reading of section 5 of 1971 Act which later on conferred Statehood to Meghalaya by clause (b) specifically included in the new State the territories which were comprised in the Shillong Cantonment and Shillong Municipality in the State of Meghalaya. The position has further been made clear from the words occurring in clause (b) to the effect "as did not form part of that Autonomous State", hence it is certain that those areas did not form part of Autonomous State of Meghalaya which was formed by section 3 of the 1969 Act. The position has further been made clear from the words occurring in clause (b) to the effect "as did not form part of that Autonomous State", hence it is certain that those areas did not form part of Autonomous State of Meghalaya which was formed by section 3 of the 1969 Act. Now reverting to Para 20 of the Sixth Schedule it is important to note that the para while defining 'tribal areas' of the State of Meghalaya does not refer to the district which were included in that State by section 5 of 1971 Act but it refers to the district which formed part of the Autonomous State of Meghalaya under section 3 of 1969 Act. The position which then clearly emerges is that the tribal district of Kahsi Hills District, in Part II of the table appended to Para 20 of Sixth Schedule, would be exclusive of the areas and territories which were comprised in the Cantonment and Municipality of Shillong immediately before the date appointed under clause (b) of section 2 of 1971 Act. So far other areas of that district, which were not comprised in the Municipality or Cantonment of Shillong, shall be tribal areas for Para 20. 25. In the above background what then can be the purpose for the use of the words "No part of the area comprised in the Municipality of Shillong shall be deemed to be within the Khasi Hills District" which occurs in the last part of the proviso to clause (2) of Para 20. While framing the proviso it could not have been the purpose of the drafters to reiterate the position which had already been made very clear from clause (2) itself. The Legislature cannot be attributed with the task of providing surplusage hence those last words occuring in the proviso must been a distinct purpose and meaning; what then is that particular purpose for which these words were inserted in the proviso? we will give our answer to the question at an appropriate stage hereafter. 26. The Ordinance has been promulgated by the Governor of Meghalaya in exercise of his legislative power under Article 213 of the Constitution, such a power can be exercised as a measure of emergency requirement to legislate when the Legislature is not in session. we will give our answer to the question at an appropriate stage hereafter. 26. The Ordinance has been promulgated by the Governor of Meghalaya in exercise of his legislative power under Article 213 of the Constitution, such a power can be exercised as a measure of emergency requirement to legislate when the Legislature is not in session. After it is promulgated it is required to be laid before the Legislature and ceases to operate : (i) on the expiry of six weeks from the date of reassembly of the Legislature, or (ii) on passing of a resolution by the Legislature for disapproving it, and (iii) on its being withdrawn. 27. The Ordinance was promulgated on 5.5.98. The Legislative Assembly of Meghalaya then was not in session. It was however reconvened and reassembled on 12.6.98 when the Legislative Assembly referred the Ordinance to the Select Committee. Thus the Ordinance, so far has not been replaced by an Act of the Legislature. As per the constitutional mandate in Article 213 the life of the Ordinance has expired in July 1998 when period of six weeks expired from 12.6.98 when the Legislative Assembly reassembled. Despite the above position the learned counsel for both the parties have urged that since a stand has been taken by the State Govt regarding non-applicability of Part IXA of the Constitution on the basis whereof the new system of election of Municipal Commissioner of Shillong Municipality has been provided in the Ordinance hence it is necessary that legal position in that regard may be clarified by the Court as the State Govt is sure to replace the Ordinance with another one or by an Act of Legislature in the near future after the case is decided. We therefore agreed to hear the matter on merits and refrained from expressing our view on the question whether or not the argument of Sri NM Lahri, the Advocate General, Meghalaya, that the word, reassembly of the legislature would mean next sitting of the house after 12.6.98 has any merit. 28. At this stage it is necessary to scan through the provisions of the Ordinance to understood its true import and to test it with the relevant provisions of the Constitution occurring in Part IXA so as to find out as to how far the Ordinance is in derogation of the provisions of Part IXA. 29. 28. At this stage it is necessary to scan through the provisions of the Ordinance to understood its true import and to test it with the relevant provisions of the Constitution occurring in Part IXA so as to find out as to how far the Ordinance is in derogation of the provisions of Part IXA. 29. Section 1 is in two parts, first part names the Ordinance as Meghalaya Municipal (Amenment) Ordinance, 1998 and the second part says that it shall come in force at once. By section 2, new provisions namely sections 12A, 12B, 12C and 12D have been added in Meghalaya Act (Assam Act XV of 1997) as adopted in Meghalaya, known as the principal Act. By section 3, clause (vii) of section 15 of the principal Act has been replaced by a new provision. By section 4 consequential amendment for substitution and addition of some words has been made in section 25 so as to give effect to the scheme of the Ordinance. Similai substitutions and additions have also been made in sections 26, 296, 296A and 298 of the principal Act respectively by sections 5,6,7 and 8 at the Ordinance. 30. Newly inserted provisions in the principal Act by section 2 and substitution of certain words of the principal Act by sections 4,5,6,7 and 8 of the Ordinance makes vital difference in the process of the election of Municipal Commissioners in the Municipality of Shillong. Therefore, it has to be examined critically. 31. New section 12A requires holding of election of Municipal Commissioners of Shillong Municipal Board by an Electoral College constituted in a wards of the Municipality. The Electoral College is to consist of the following : (a) Rangbah/Shnongs (Headman) of local Dorbars; (b) Headman/Chairman or President of local civil welfare association of the ward; (c) Office bearers of local Darbar and civil welfare association of the locality as may fall in the ward or in part of the ward. The-total number of the representatives from the 3 sources in the Electoral College is not to exceed 10. The right to contest the election is by nomination of anyone from amongst the Electoral College or from amongst residents of the concerned ward. The-total number of the representatives from the 3 sources in the Electoral College is not to exceed 10. The right to contest the election is by nomination of anyone from amongst the Electoral College or from amongst residents of the concerned ward. The nomination is required to be filed before the Returning Officer of the ward by the date appointed by the Deputy Commissioner who has also been empowered to fix the date, time and place for the holding of election by means of a notified order whereas the manner in which the election has to be held will be provided by the State Govt. By section 12B the Deputy Commissioner has been empowered to appoint Returning Officer of the ward who shall conduct and presides over the election. Section 12C provides that local Darbars and local civil welfare associations will be recorded by the Deputy Commissioner on application filed by Rangbah Shnongs, Headman, Chairman, or Presidents of local civil welfare associations before the Deputy Commissioner. The application shall contain name of the local civil welfare association with the address of its head quarters, area of its operation (jurisdiction), name of the Rangbah/Shnongs, Headman etc and of the office bearers. Ten or lesser member of names of person who may be made members of Electoral College, the date of formations of the local Darbar etc and other relevant information. Section 12D reserve a power with the Govt to appoint 3 women as nominated Commissioner of the Municipality who will enjoy the same position as an elected Municipal Commissioner provided before nominating them the Govt is required to consult such women organisations of the area which have their head-quarters in any part of Shillong Municipality. The substituted clause (vii) in section 15 of the principal Act disqualifies from election to the office of Municipal Commissioner - Govt servants, members of Legislative Assembly or of District Council and employee of any local authority, Commission, Board or Corporations owned or controlled by the Central or State Govt. 32. The substituted clause (vii) in section 15 of the principal Act disqualifies from election to the office of Municipal Commissioner - Govt servants, members of Legislative Assembly or of District Council and employee of any local authority, Commission, Board or Corporations owned or controlled by the Central or State Govt. 32. Reverting now to the relevant provisions of the Constitution in Part DCA it is to be seen that Article 243P is the definition clause; apart from other terms in clause (d) it defines municipal area to be territorial area of a municipality as notified by the Governor Clause (e) defines municipality as an institution of local self Govt constituted under Article 243Q and word population in clause (g) means the population as ascertained at the last preceding census of which the relevant figures have published. Article 243Q (1) (c) enjoins on the State Govt to constitute Municipal Corporation for a larger urban area, in accordance with the provisions of Part IXA. Article 243R provides the format for the composition of municipalities. In its first part it requires filling up of all seats in the municipality by persons chosen by direct elections (emphasis supplied), from the territorial constituencies in the municipal area wherefor each municipal area, will be divided into territorial constituencies to be called wards. Its clause (2) empowers the State Govt to make rules for representation in the municipality of (i) person having special knowledge or experience in municipal administration, (h) MPs and MLAs who represents the constituency comprising either wholly or partly the municipal area, (iii) MPs of upper house and MLC who are registered as voters in the municipal area, (iv) Chairpersons of Committees constituted under Article 243S, but none of the persons so nominated will have right to vote in municipal meetings; and for the election of Chairperson of municipality. Article 243S provides as to how and in what situation Ward Committee will be formed and what shall be its composition. Article 243S provides as to how and in what situation Ward Committee will be formed and what shall be its composition. Article 243T deals with reservation of seats in favour of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, number of seats to be reserved for them is required to bear a particular proportion to the total number of seats to be filled by direct election in the municipalities as the population of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the municipal areas bears to the total population of that area, the number of seats reserved for them is required to be rotated to different constituencies of municipalities. Atleast one third of the total number of seats are required to be reserved for women belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and out of the total number of seats to be filled by direct recruitment one third is required to be reserved in favour of women which has to be allotted by rotation to different constituencies in municipalities. The number of seats reserved for women however is to be inclusive of the total number of seats reserved for women belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The State Legislatures is also required to provide by law the manner of reservations of the office of the Chairperson of municipalities in favour of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and women and the period of reservation of the seats, except for the reservation of seats for women, will cease to have effect on the expiry of the period provided under Article 334. The Legislature is also empowered to make reservation in favour of backward classes. Article 243U provides for the term of municipalities to be five years, until dissolved earlier, from the date of appointed for its first meeting whereafter it shall cease to function. Article 243 V deals with disqualification for members of municipalities. Article 243W deals with the powers, authority and responsibilities of municipalities. Article 243U provides for the term of municipalities to be five years, until dissolved earlier, from the date of appointed for its first meeting whereafter it shall cease to function. Article 243 V deals with disqualification for members of municipalities. Article 243W deals with the powers, authority and responsibilities of municipalities. Article 243X empowers the Legislature of the State by law to authorise the municipalities to levy, collect and appropriate taxes, duties, tolls and fees in accordance with the procedure and to a particular limit as may be fixed and to assign to the municipalities such taxes etc, levied and collected by the State Govt for such purpose and on such conditions and limits as it may provides by law and for making grant in aid to the municipalities from the consolidated fund of the State and to provide for constitution of funds after crediting all monies received by or on behalf of the municipalities. Article 243 Y provides that Finance Commission constituted under Article 2431, which occurs in Part IX, to review the financial position of municipalities and for making recommendation to the Governor on certain matters and the Governor is empowered to lay its recommendations before the Legislature of the State alongwith the action taken report. Article 243ZA provides that superintenerice, direction and control and duty for the preparations of the electoral rolls, the conduct of all elections to the municipalities has be vested in the State Election Commission, referred to in Article 243 K of Part DC. Clause (2) of the Article empowers the State Legislatures to make laws, with respect to all matters relating to, or in connection with, election to municipalities. Article 243Z deals with the applicability of Part IXA to Union Territories whereas Article 243ZC provides that Part IXA shall not apply to the scheduled areas referred to in clause (1) of Article 244 and to tribal areas, referred to clause (2) of Article 244. In clause (3) it however, authorises the Parliament to extend by law the provisions of the Part to those areas subject to such exceptions and modifications as may be specified in that law and such law of the Parliament will not be deemed to be amendment of the Constitution for the purpose of Article 368. Article 243ZE requires setting up of Committees for District Planning and Metropolitan Planning. Article 243ZE requires setting up of Committees for District Planning and Metropolitan Planning. Article 243ZF permits continuance of existing laws, though inconsistent with the provisions of Part IXA, until the same are amended or repealed by the Legislature or until the expiration of one year from the commencement of the Constitution Amendment Act, 1992. Article 243ZG creates a bar to the jurisdiction of Courts in the matters of validity of any law relating to the delimitation of constituencies or to the allotment of seats to such constituencies made under Article 243ZA and to the legality of election to any municipality, except by an election petition, which can be presented to an authority and in the manner as may be provided by law made by the Legislature of the State. 33. Having scanned through the provisions of Part IXA of the Constitution, it is now necessary to deal with the case in the light of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, in support of the writ petition and also in support of the impugned Ordinance. 34. Though Article 243R requires holding of direct election to elect members of municipalities but section 12A introduced in the principal Act by section 2 of the Ordinance provides for holding of indirect election of Municipal Commissioners (Members) of the Municipality of Shillong through an Electoral College which is sought to be comprised of Headman of local Darbar which is exclusively manned by the tribals of Khasi Hills District falling in the areas which are within the territorial limits of the Municipality of Shillong and Headman, Chairman or President of local civil welfare associations of the localities of the concerned wards with any name; an office bearers of such Darbars and local civil welfare associations having their head office within the ward with the limit that total number of such representatives in the Electoral College from all the sources afore­mentioned will not exceed the numbers of 10. Thus a group of only 10 persons who are picked up from local Darbars and civil welfare associations of the locality, have been given the power to elect Municipal Commissioner of the municipality for a particular ward. Thus a group of only 10 persons who are picked up from local Darbars and civil welfare associations of the locality, have been given the power to elect Municipal Commissioner of the municipality for a particular ward. It therefore follows that in the process of election of Municipal Commissioner of municipality of a ward, a large number of voters belonging to the ward who have otherwise been conferred with voting rights under section 14 of the principal Act, and are entitled to elect their own Municipal Councillors, have been prevented from having their say in the election of the Municipal Councillor of their ward. The unfortunate scenario in this regard is further apparent from section 12C which too has been introduced in the principal Act by section 2 of the Ordinance. The section does not provide any guidelines for the Deputy Commissioner of East Khasi Hills District, in whose territorial jurisdiction the Municipality of Shillong falls, for recording the local Darbars and local civil welfare associations so as to confer on them the entitlement for sending their representatives for the constitution of the Electoral College of a particular ward. An apprehension thus is natural to arise in the mind of the concerned people that the Deputy Commissioner, who is exposed to undue influences of politicians, leaders of political parties induing MLA's, MP's and Ministers may not act in a free and fair manner in the recording of the Darbars and civil welfare association who alone, on being so recorded, will be entitled to send their representatives to constitute the Electoral College. The two sections read together show that wide and unbridled power of great importance have been given to the Deputy Commissioner, who by the very nature of his appointment cannot be free from political influence, but has been given the last say in the matter of recording of local Darbars and civil welfare associations. In this context it is necessary to notice the provisions of Article 243ZA of Part IXA and 243K of Part IX. These Articles read together require that the superintendence, direction and control for the preparation of electoral rolls and the conduct of elections to the municipalities to be vested in the State Election Commission appointed under Article 243K. From perusal of Article 243K it will appear that the Election Commissioner has been kept free from the influence of the Govt and its Ministers etc. From perusal of Article 243K it will appear that the Election Commissioner has been kept free from the influence of the Govt and its Ministers etc. Whereas the Deputy Commissioner who under section 12C has been made the substitute to the Election Commissioner, is a junior officer of the State Govt and works in exclusive control of the State Govt. He is in the direct influence of the Ministers of the Govt, the MLAs and MPs and other politicians of the areas concerned. Hence the Deputy Commissioner cannot at all be trusted to freely and fairly discharge the functions which have been entrusted to him under the aforementioned provisions as it is expected to be discharged by the Election Commission. The provisions of these two sections in our opinion, are violative of the provisions of Articles 243ZA read with Article 243K of Part IX. 35. Shri NM Lahiri, the Avocate General of the State of Meghalaya however contended that the provisions of sections 12A and 12C do not militate against the provisions of Articles 243R and 243ZA. His argument was that the-word 'direct election' which has been used in Article 243R does not mean conferment of voting rights on all those persons who have such a right under section 14 of principal Act or under the provisions of the Representation of the People's Act. His • suggestion was that the word 'voter' would derive the meaning given to it in the law providing for the manner of election which is decided by the State Legislature by means of Jaw enacted by it for holding the election of the members of the Municipality of Shillong in exercise of its power conferred by Article 243ZA(2). As regards violation of clause (!) of Article 243ZA, Shri Lahiri, did not advance any argument except for what he said regarding non-applicability of Part IXA to the Shillong Municipality which according to him falls in Khasi Hills District mentioned in item 1 of Part II of the table appended to Para 20 of the Sixth Schedule. 36. We find great difficulty in accepting the argument of Shri Lahiri which, if we may have his licence to say, is preposterous. The word 'direct election' signifies direct participation, of the people in the election for whose advantage and participation the election of Municipal Commissioner is held. 36. We find great difficulty in accepting the argument of Shri Lahiri which, if we may have his licence to say, is preposterous. The word 'direct election' signifies direct participation, of the people in the election for whose advantage and participation the election of Municipal Commissioner is held. As has already been noticed in the earlier part of this judgment, the very concept of the constitution of municipalities and other local authorities as contemplated by Parts IX and IXA of the Constitution is conferment to the rights of local self Govt to the people who belong to the areas which are comprised in a particular local body. In the exercises of its power under clause (2) of Article 243ZA the State Legislature cannot wholly dilute the right of the people to elect their representative to the local authority, by whatever name called, which has been given to them by Articles 243C in Part DC and Article 243R in Part IXA. Therefore a law made by the State Legislature, in the purported exercise of its power under clause (2) of Article 243ZA cannot take away the vested rights of the people which has been given to them by Article 243R, The laws made by the Legislature for the purposes of providing the manner of holding election to municipalities or for any other purpose which is stated in the said Article has to be in keeping with, and not in derogation of the provisions of Article 243R and clause (1) of Article 243ZA. Legislature's power to provide for the manner of holding election of Municipal Commissioner cannot go beyond the basic requirement of Article 243R which enjoins the manner to be by direct election, hence a law made by the State Legislature in the purported exercise of its power for laying down the manner making a provision for holding Municipal Councillors election by indirect method through, Electoral College would be violative of Article 243R (1). In above view, limb of the argument of Sri Lahiri therefore has no merit which is accordingly rejected. So far the second limb of argument of Sri Lahiri regarding non-applicability of Part IXA is concerned we shall express our view a little later. 37. In above view, limb of the argument of Sri Lahiri therefore has no merit which is accordingly rejected. So far the second limb of argument of Sri Lahiri regarding non-applicability of Part IXA is concerned we shall express our view a little later. 37. Though in view of the nature of the provisions of section 12A, it is not necessary to dwell upon the suggestion of Shri Lahiri that election of Municipal Councillors of Shillong Municipality, is a direct election, still we wish to test his argument. Section 12A and 12C provide for constitution of an Electoral College of 10 persons who will be the Headmen of local Darbars and civil welfare associations, which have their head office within the territory of the ward concerned. These ten persons have been given the power to vote in the election of a Municipal Councillor in a ward, where election to an office is held by elected representatives forming an Electoral College, such an election is an indirect election and not a direct election. There is yet another aspect of the case. The principal Act or the Ordinance under challenge does not deal with the constitution of local Darbars or civil welfare associations. Whereas local Darbars are concerned they are formed under the laws made under the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution. They function under the direct control of the concerned Autonomous District Councils. These Darbars have no concern with municipal administration and Municipal Board of Shillong exercise no power or control on them nor it has any role in their constitution too. Similar is the position regarding civil welfare associations. Their constitution is not concerned by the provisions of the Ordinance under challenge. The Ordinance too does not specify as to what type of civil welfare associations and registered under which law will be eligible for enrolment-by the Deputy Commissioner in exercise of his power under section 12C. There is not indication in the Ordinance as to the nature of civil welfare association which will be enrolled by the DC whose Headman and representatives chosen from amongst their office bearers will constitute the Electoral College along with the Rangbah Shnongs of local Darbars and its office bearers for electing Municipal Councillor from a particular ward of the municipality. There is not indication in the Ordinance as to the nature of civil welfare association which will be enrolled by the DC whose Headman and representatives chosen from amongst their office bearers will constitute the Electoral College along with the Rangbah Shnongs of local Darbars and its office bearers for electing Municipal Councillor from a particular ward of the municipality. How the system of election which has been discusssed hereinabove can by any stretch of imagination be called a municipal election and the system as direct election? Only Sri Lahiri can give answer to this question the affirmative. Our reply to the question however is the negative. 38. For satisfying the test of municipal election by direct method election of Municipal Commissioners of Shillong Municipality has and have to be held by direct involvement of the people of the areas which are comprised in the municipal limits. Any process which denies the people living in those areas the right of vote will not be either municipal election or an election held by direct method. Who will be entitled to vote or offer their candidature in such election is the job assigned to the State Legislature which will lay down the manner of holding the election. Even if it was permissible for the Legislature to provide for an indirect election of the members of the Municipal Board it could only be done by constituting an Electoral College of persons who are chosen from amongst the" members of the municipal bodies elected by direct election under the scheme which has to be provided by the law which has to be in conformity of the principles of local self Govt and not otherwise. In our opinion, for the reasons stated herein above, the manner which has been provided by the Ordinance for the election of Municipal Commissioners of Shillong Municipal Board is neither direct election nor it answers the essential requirements of local self Govt which is a must looking to the scheme of Part IXA particularly of Article 243R. 39. In our opinion, for the reasons stated herein above, the manner which has been provided by the Ordinance for the election of Municipal Commissioners of Shillong Municipal Board is neither direct election nor it answers the essential requirements of local self Govt which is a must looking to the scheme of Part IXA particularly of Article 243R. 39. Appointment of Deputy Commissioner, East Khasi Hills District by section 12B and 12C added to the principal Act by the Ordinance as a substitute for the Election Commission, which is the requirement of clause (1) of the Article 243ZA too in our opinion is unconstitutional as it does not ensure fair election of the Municipal Board of Shillong as per the requirement of Part DCA. It however provides for the constitution of the Board which for all "practical purposes will remain a department of the State Govt as its constitution will be under its full control. By entrusting the superintendence, direction and control of municipal elections to the Election Commission appointed under Article 243K of Part DC, the Constitution required the constitution of local bodies to be free from Governmental influence. It is for this reason that in the matters of functioning, term of office, power of removal etc of the Election Commission the State or Central Govts have no say whatsoever. His working has been made free from all political or Governmental influences like that of Judges of High Court. That position, however is not enjoyed by the Deputy Commissioner whose appointment and tenure of office is in absolute discretion and control of the State Govt. Discretion of State Govt is not free from political influences. Shri Lahiri too has not claimed that the Deputy Commissioners can be a good or appropriate substitute for the Election Commissioner for ensuring a free and fair election. Viewed thus section 12A, 12B, 12C and 12D read together provide for a Govt controlled/election of Municipal Commissioners and to other offices of Municipal Board, Shillong. This obviously is contrary to the basic concept of free and fair election envisaged by Part IXA. 40. Before parting with the discussion on the point it is also necessary to test the legality of section 12D too which deals with the nomination of women members in the Municipal Board of Shillong. This obviously is contrary to the basic concept of free and fair election envisaged by Part IXA. 40. Before parting with the discussion on the point it is also necessary to test the legality of section 12D too which deals with the nomination of women members in the Municipal Board of Shillong. The section clothes the Govt of Meghalaya with a blanket power to nominate 3 women as members of the Municipal Board who for all intent and purpose, will be full fledged members of Municipal Board of Shillong like their elected counterparts. This provision too in our opinion negates the concept of an elected Municipal Board which is the basic requirement of Article 243R. Article 243T provides for reservation of seats of members of municipality to the extent or l/3rd of total number of seats for women. The Ordinance however, instead of making provision for reservation of seats has chosen to resort to the method of making nomination of three women hand picked by the State Govt to be made members of Municipal Board so as to ensure their representation in the Municipality of Shillong. This system of women representation in municipalities is not within the contemplation of the Constitution. Clause (2) of Article 243P in its sub-clause (a) deals with the powers of State Legislature to make law for representation of persons other than those elected under clause (1), but such persons have not been given voting rights in the municipal meetings. This clearly envisages that except for the members who have been elected by the method of direct election as member of municipality no other person, who has been clothed with the membership of the municipality, have the right to vote in the meeting of the Board hence section 12D which confers full fledged membership with voting rights, in favour of nominated women members in this Board too is violative of Article 243R. 41. Now we may revert of Sri Lahiri's argument relating to Article 243ZC specially to the later part of clause (1) wherein it is stated that provisions of Part IXA will have no application to tribal areas regarding whom reference has been made in Article 244 (2). 42. Clause (2) of Article 244 says that provisions of the Sixth Schedule shall apply to the administration of the tribal areas in the State of Meghalaya. 42. Clause (2) of Article 244 says that provisions of the Sixth Schedule shall apply to the administration of the tribal areas in the State of Meghalaya. We have already scanned through the Sixth Schedule earlier in this judgment and in that discussion we have also dealt with the meaning of the words 'tribal areas' used in Article 244 (2) and in the Sixth Schedule as defined in Para 20 thereof with appropriate reference to 1969 and 1971 Acts relating respectively to constitution of Autonomous State of Meghalaya and conferment of Statehood to it. 43. In para 25 above we had posed a question which we wished to answer at a later stage. It is now the stage that we have to give our answer to that question. The question arose in connection with the interpretation of clause (2) of Para 20 of the Sixth Schedule in paras 20 and 21 of this judgment. In that connection we had noted the purpose for which the words "Any reference in Part I, Part II or Part III of the table below to any district shall be construed as a reference to the territories comprised within the autonomous district of that name existing immediately before the day appointed under clause (b) of section 2 of 1971 Act occurring in clause (b) of section 2 of 1971 Act". In that connection the provisions both of 1971 and 1969 Acts were also construed. From a combined reading of the provisions of the above two enactments it emerged that the territories which were comprised in the Municipality and in the Cantonment of Shillong did not come within the purview of tribal area then why in the proviso to clause (2) of Para 20 words "no part of the area comprised within the Municipality of Shillong shall be deemed to be within the Khasi Hills District" was again repeated. We further expressed our view that the said words occurring in the said proviso, which have been quoted hereinabove, are not by way to surplusage and been used with specific purpose which was required to be achieved by the Legislatures keeping in its mind the position prevailing in that regard under clause (2) of Para 20. 44. We now state our answer as follows : There are two types of areas which form part of Shillong Municipal Board. 44. We now state our answer as follows : There are two types of areas which form part of Shillong Municipal Board. Firstly the area which are called normal Shillong where the District Council of East Khasi Hills District, by virtue of clause (2) of Para 20 of the Sixth Schedule, exercises no power whatsoever. The areas which are called normal Shillong and form part of Municipality of Shillong are comprised in 5 Wards out of total number of 28 Wards of the Municipality. These 5 Wards in the normal Shillong are : (1) Police Bazar, (2) European Ward which includes Red Cross, Keating Road, Barik, Secretariate Hill and Temple Road, (3) Jail Road, (4) Quinton Road, Wards Lake, Pinewood Hotel, Lower Lachumiere, (5) Civil Station (Govt establishments viz Secretariate, Police, PWD etc. Rest of 23 Wards, namely (6) Laitumkhrah, Nongrimbah, Nongrim Road, Lumsohra, Demseiniong,-Nongrimmaw, (7) Upper and Lower New Colony, Bhagyakul and Nongkynrih, (8) Upland Road and Upper Lachumiere, (9) Lummawrie, (10) Dhankheti, Kharmalki, Risa Colony, Cleve Colony, Khlieshnong, Wahkalait, (11) Umshyrpi, Chinapatty, Nongshillang, Mission and Pdenshong, (12) Mawlai Nongmali and Forest Colony, (13) Umsohsum and Mawkhar, (14) Jaiawshyiap, Lumpyllon, Jaiawpdeng, (15) Jaiaw Laitdom, Lumsyntiew, Lumbatemon, (16) Jaiaw Langsning, (17) Mission Compound, (18) Sunny Hills, Qualapatty, Wahthapbroo, (19) Lower Mawprem, (20) Upper Mawprem, (21) Naspatighari, Mawprem, (22) Rilbong and Kenches Trace, (23) Bishnupur and Kenches Trace, (24) Laban West, (25) Laban East (26) Lumparing, New Colony, Lumsohpoh, (27) Lumparing, Rait Laban and Madan Laban, (28) Wahingdoh and Raitsamthiah fornvpart of Khasi Hills District which occurs at item No. 1 of table appened to Para 20. The areas comprised in these 23 Wards of Shillong Municipality belong to the Kingdom of Syiem of Mylliem who has handed over these areas to be included in the Shillong Municipality for the purposes of municipal administration. In this way though the areas of these 23 Wards are comprised in the Municipality of Shillong for the purposes of municipal administration still for purposes other than those which are mentioned in the said proviso of clause (2) of Para 20, these areas are governed by the laws and rules made by the Khasi Hills Autonomous District Council as per the provisions of the Sixth Schedule. In that regard the Autonomous District Council of Khasi Hills District exercised it powers in those areas. In that regard the Autonomous District Council of Khasi Hills District exercised it powers in those areas. It was in regard of thse 23 Wards in Municipality of Shillong that the framers of clause (2) of Para 20 used aforementioned words in last part of the proviso. Real import of these words therefore will be that in the matters which have been specifically mentioned in the proviso, areas comprised in these 23 Wards of Municipal Board Shillong would not be deemd to be within the Khasi Hills District whereas for rest of subjects which are mentioned in paras 3,4,5,6, 8 and 10 of Sixth Schedule these 23 Wards will be treated to be within the Khasi Hills District. The 23 Wards named above thus have a dual personality. One for purposes of clause (e) and (f) of sub-para (1) of Para 3, Para 4, Para 5, Para 6, sub-para (2) clause (a), (b) and (d), sub-para (3) and sub-para (4) of Para 8 and clause (d) of sub-para (2) of Para 10 they do not form part of Khasi Hills District whereas for rest of the purposes, these areas form part of Khasi Hills District. 45. Sub-clause (e) and (f) of clause (1) of Para 3 of Sixth Schedule respectively, relate inter alia to the establishment of Town Committees or Councils and their powers and any other matter relating to town administration including town police and public health and sanitation. Establishment of Municipality of Shillong and election of its members would certainly come within the purview of sub-clause (e) and (f) of clause (1) of Para 3 referred to hereinabove. Therefore it is not correct on the part of Sri Lahiri to contend that the 23 Wards out of 28 which constitute the Municipality of Shillong and tribal areas for all intent and purposes including for the subjects which have been referred in the proviso of clause (2) of Para 20. In our opinion, the interpretation of the proviso or of clause (2) of Para 20 suggested by Sri Lahiri can be possible only when one.is oblivious of its true meaning and purpose. In the light of the words used in Para 20, specifically in caluse (2) and its proviso, it is not possible to contrue the para in the manner which has been suggested by the learned Advocate General of Meghalaya. In the light of the words used in Para 20, specifically in caluse (2) and its proviso, it is not possible to contrue the para in the manner which has been suggested by the learned Advocate General of Meghalaya. We are therefore of the view that all the areas which are comprised in and form part of the Municipality of Shillong, including the normal areas represented by the 5 Wards and the rest of the 23 Wards so far as municipal administration and establish­ment of municipality is concerned do not form part of Khasi Hills District hence are not covered by the words 'tribal areas' used in clause (1) of Article 243ZC. 46. There is yet another aspect of this point to which Shri Lahiri has not been able to give any cogent reply to us. Elections of the Municipal Councillors, as per the impugned Ordinance, is required to be held in the manner laid down in newly added sections 12A, 12B, 12C and 12D which is.to be form an Electoral College of 10 persons in each of the 28 Wards including the 5 Wards which form part of normal Shillong and admittedly are not comprised in East Khasi Hills District for any purpose whatsoever. To everyone's dismay the Ordinance however does not make exception in the matter of election of Municipal Councillors in those 5 Wards where admittedly election of members of the municipality has to be held in the manner which is provided in Article 243R, ie, by means of direct election and not an Electoral College, therefore even if argument of Shri Lahiri, by any stretch of imagination, is accepted still there appears to be no escape from the position that Part IXA of Constitution would apply and election of municipality in these 5 Wards must be held in the manner as provided in Part IXA. The Legislature cannot provide for two different modes of election of members of a municipality in two different wards of the same municipality. Since, however, that situation does not arise in the present case we need not have to dwell upon the permissibility of dual system of election of members etc in the Shillong Municipality. The Legislature cannot provide for two different modes of election of members of a municipality in two different wards of the same municipality. Since, however, that situation does not arise in the present case we need not have to dwell upon the permissibility of dual system of election of members etc in the Shillong Municipality. The interpretation we have given to the words 'tribal areas' in Para 20 of the Sixth Schedule produces a compact picture in the matter of election of the Municipality of Shillong which in our view to be held in accordance with the provisions of Part IXA of the Constitution and Article 243ZC has no application to the areas which are comprised in the Municipality of Shillong. 47. However, for emphasising his contention that in respect of the 23 Wards named above, provisions of the Constitution in Part IXA will have no application, Shri Lahiri placed reliance on the following decisions: (1) Hardeo Das vs. State of Assam, AIR 1970 SC 724 ; (2) District Council, United Jaintia Hills, Shillong & others vs. K. Drespsila Lyngdoh, AIR 1975 SC 1002 and (3) 1C Chakraborty vs. Khasi Hills District Council, (1984) 1 GLR 305(FB). He also referred to some other decisions but did not place reliance on those cases. We therefore, choose to deal with only those decisions on which Shri Lahiri has placed reliance in support of his contention to the effect that notwithstanding use of the words "no part of the area comprised within the Municipality of Shillong shall be deemed to be within the East Khasi Hills District." which occur in proviso to clause (2) of Para 20 of Sixth Schedule, the 23 Wards of Shillong Municipality will form part of the East Khasi Hills District for all purpose including for the purposes which are mentioned in the said proviso. We do not agree with this argument of Shri Lahiri. Firstly for the reason that none of the decisions cited by Shri Lahiri relate to municipal administration or to establishment of municipality. In 1C Chakraborty (supra) this Court itself observed that the Syiem of Mylliem, within whose territorial jurisdiction Mawkhar (Bara Bazar area) fell, had surrendered that area for municipal administration. 48. We will however still deal with the case serially, Hardeo Das vs. State of Assam, AIR 1970 SC 724 . In 1C Chakraborty (supra) this Court itself observed that the Syiem of Mylliem, within whose territorial jurisdiction Mawkhar (Bara Bazar area) fell, had surrendered that area for municipal administration. 48. We will however still deal with the case serially, Hardeo Das vs. State of Assam, AIR 1970 SC 724 . In this case the question which arose for decision was whether on the expiry of the British Paramountcy and before signing of the document of accession by the Syiem of Mylliem the Govt of Assam possessed the power of extend the provisions of Assam Sales Tax Act in those areas in exercise of power under Extra Provincial Jurisdiction Act, 1947. 49. Supreme Court referred the question to the Central Govt for obtaining its official answer of the question as per the provisions of section 6 of the Act and on the basis of the answer provided to the Supreme Court by the Central Govt, the Supreme Court decided the case on the premise that jurisdiction over Shillong administered areas falling in the State of Mylliem was being exercised with the consent of the Syiem of Mylliem by the dominion of India and that jurisdiction was retained thereafter by virtue of the instrument of accession signed by the Syiem of the agreement annexed thereto. In the exercise of that jurisdiction, which was quite extensive, some central as well as provincial enactments were made applicable in Shillong Administered areas, as Income Tax Act, Assam-Municipal Act with the consent of the Syiem of Mylliem where necessary. The observation of the Supreme in the judgment will go to show that the power of the State Govt of Assam to extent the priovisions of State laws was upheld both from the instrument of accession signed by the Syiem of Mylliem and where necessary with his consent. 50. AIR 1975 SC1022, The District Council, United Jaintia Hills ShiUong & others vs. Ka D rep si la Lyngdoh. Question involved in the case was whether the District Council had power to give permission for construction in Shillong Municipality administered areas (Bara Bazar). 51. The Supreme Court in para 7 of the judgment held that from the material on record it could be found that what was ceded by the Syiem of Mylliem was not at all his rights over the area in question but only the right of municipal administra­tion in favour of the Municipality of Shillong. 51. The Supreme Court in para 7 of the judgment held that from the material on record it could be found that what was ceded by the Syiem of Mylliem was not at all his rights over the area in question but only the right of municipal administra­tion in favour of the Municipality of Shillong. Hence by virtue thereof, the areas so ceded by the Syiem of Mylliem did not become part of the Shillong Municipality and remained still under the control of District Council (for porpose other than municipal administration). In this decision too the Supreme Court has recognised the fact that the area of Bara Bazar (which is in the Municipal Board of Shillong but does not form part of normal Shillong) was ceded by the Syiem of Mylliem to the municipality for municipal administration, therefore on this premise too the provisions of Part DCA of the Constitution which relate to municipal administration will be applicable to non-normal areas of Shillong Municipality which have been referred to in the proviso to clause (2) of Para 20. 52. IC Chakraborty vs. Khasi Hills District Council, (1984) 1GLR 305 (FB). Question involved in this case was whether jurisdiction of District Council Courts extends to Mawfchar (including Barabazar) area. The question was answered in the affirmative. While giving its answer to the question, this Court held that the District Council Courts alone have jurisdiction over the area under reference. However in para 3 of the judgment the Court examined what was meant by the words tribal area within the meaning of Para 20 of the Sixth Schedule. The Full Bench of this Court held that areas which are comprised in the Shillong Cantonment and Shillong Municipality have ceased to be tribal areas for the purposes mentioned in the proviso to the above Para 20 and one of purposes for which it has ceased to be tribal area include municipality town administration as well administration of justice but the areas which are still in the Mylliem Syiemship will continue to be tribal areas and power conferred on the District Council in Para 1 to 10, including the powers which are exempted by the above proviso to Para 20 shall remain in tact. It was on the above premise that the Full Bench held that the District Council Court had exclusive jurisdiction over Mawkhar area including Bara Bazar area. 53. It was on the above premise that the Full Bench held that the District Council Court had exclusive jurisdiction over Mawkhar area including Bara Bazar area. 53. In none of the above discussed cases, question regarding municipal administration over non-normal area which are included in Shillong Municipality for municipal administration was involved nor has been decided. On the contrary the full Bench observation in Chakraborty (supra) that the Barabazar which still forms part of the Mylliem Syiemship, was surrendered to the municipality by the Syiem of Mylliem State for the municipal administration would strengthen petitioners case that the area comprised in the 23 Wards of Shillong Municipality which are more conveniently called non-normal Shillong areas also have ceased to be tribal areas atleast for the purpose of municipal administration for which those areas were ceded or surrendered by Syiem of Mylliem State to the Municipal Board of Shillong and which are the areas comprised in the Municipal Board of Shillong regarding which reference has been made in the last words of proviso of clause (2) of Para 20 of the Sixth Schedule. Therefore, form the above cited decisions no support is forthcomming to the stand of the State Govt of Meghalaya, on the question that the provisions of Part IXA will not apply to non-normal areas of Shillong Municipality. In our opinion the areas which are comprised in Shillong Municipality including non-normal area which are comprised in the aforesaid named 23 Wards for the purpose of municipal administration have ceased to the tribal areas and the provision of elections of member in all the wards falling in the territorial jurisdiction of Shillong Municipality, has to be held in accordance with the constitutional mandate contained in Part IXA. 54. Shri NM Lahiri, lastly contended that the challenge posed to the Ordinance in this Court by petitioners is barred by Article 243ZG, therefore, in view of the bar created by that Article the writ petition has to be dismissed as not maintainable. According to Shri Lahiri, the Articles under reference specifically bar any challenge to the constitutional validity of laws enacted by State Legislature in relation to (a) delimitation of constituencies, and (b) allotment of seats to such constituencies hence the writ petition which includes challenge to the provisions relating to delimitation of constituencies and allotment of seat in such constituencies is not maintainable in view of Article 243ZG. We however donot agree to the above suggestion of Shri Lahiri. Shri Lahiri however could not elucidate his point further as he was unable to indicate as to which of the provisions in the Ordinance, under the challenge under the writ petition, deals with the subject of delimitation of wards and allotment of seats in such wards. Side tracking the issue Shri Lahiri however went on to contend that the real import of Article 243ZG'is that no law made by the Legislature concerning holding of municipal elections can be called in question in a Court of law and only alternative regard is to file election petition before the designated election tribulal to challenge the resultant election. We are afraid such an argument is not only contrary to the purpose for which Part IXA has been brought in the Constitution but if accepted it will also militate against the basic fundamental principles of power of judicial review which has been reversed with the Supreme Court of India and with the State High Courts respectively by Article 32 and 226. A new Law specially in High Courts or in the Supreme Court have to be given very strict interpretation. The bar, if imposed against Constitutional remedies, have to be confined to only those specific subjects to which it has been specifically mentioned in the provision. It is another thing that if form the bar imposed in the statute something is not permissible to be done directly it is also impermissible to do that thing indirectly. 55. The main purpose of Article 243ZG is to create bar against launcing of attack in Courts of law on the ground of illegality against law's relating to delimination of wards and allotment of seats in such wards. It does not confer to such laws immunity from the attack of unconstitutionality which would go to suggest two things : (a) though challenge against such laws on the ground of violation of provisions of the Constitution cannot be launched in normal civil Courts or Tribunals, (b) but challenge against the said laws on the ground is not barred if it is made in the Supreme Court under Article 32 or in the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. This view we are expressing on the basis of the words which have used in clause (a) of the Article 243ZG. This view we are expressing on the basis of the words which have used in clause (a) of the Article 243ZG. Remedies in State High Courts and in the Supreme Court of India provided by Article 226 and 32 are extra ordinary remedies. Bar against such remedies cannot readily be inferred. No other law except for the Constitution of India can impose bar against such remedies. A provision in the Constitution of India too, which purports to impose a bar against remedies provided by these Articles, has to be construed strictly. Therefore bar against extra-ordinary remedy by means of writ jurisdiction in Supreme Court or in the High Courts, unless specifically imposed, will no be inferred only because a general bar against remedy in Courts has been imposed. 56. Therefore for the two reasons stated above, which we may reiterate over again at the cost of repetition, present writ petition is not barred and is maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution, those two reasons are : (a) the impugned provisions donot deal with either of the two subjects of delimitation of wards in the Shillong Municipality or with allotment of seats in such wards but with the manner of election of Municipal Councillors of Shillong Municipality and curtailment of voting rights of the voters as provided in section 14 of the principal Act and other miscellaneous and analogous matters which are not at all connected with either of the two subjects in any manner whatsoever. (b) bar against remedy in Courts of law which has been created by clause (a) of Article 243ZG would not apply to the extraordinary remedy under Article 32 and 226 of the Constitution which respectively empower the Supreme Court of India and State High Court to make judicial review not only of orders of judicial or quasi-judicial nature but orders of purely administrative nature including legislative enactments including amendments made in the Constitution to ensure that basic rights of the people are preserved and not envaded either by the ever jealous executive or by legislature. Encroachment of the power of judicial review by the Supreme Court and High Court cannot be assumed from the provision firstly because Article 243ZG does not specifically say so. Encroachment of the power of judicial review by the Supreme Court and High Court cannot be assumed from the provision firstly because Article 243ZG does not specifically say so. Until a specific bar against constitutional remedies is imposed, bar against those remedies cannot be assumed by necessary implication as has been suggested by Shri Lahiri, This apart bar against constitutional remedies under Article 32 and 226 cannot be imposed except in most pressing* circumstances and a provision which imposes such a bar may run the risk of being declared to be violative of the basic structure of the Constitution. Since no specific bar against remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution has been imposed by clause (a) of Article 243ZG we therefore need not dwell upon the point any further. 57. In the result the writ petition is allowed, the provisions of the impugned Ordinance are declared void and ineffective. No other point was argued by Shri Lahiri. We are therefore of the view that the provisions contained in sections 12A, 12B, 12C, 12D and clause (vii) of sections 15 respectively which are sought to be introduced in the principal Act by means of sections 2 and 3 of the impugned Ordinance are violative of the provisions of Articles 243R and 243ZA (1) along with the consequential amendments made in principal Act by sections 4,5, 6 and 7 of the Ordinance which may be construed to empower the Deputy Commissioner or the Secretary in the Urban Development Department of the State Govt to exercise control or power of superintendence or of direction of municipal election of Shillong Municipality including any other role assigned to them are illegal and unconstitutional for being violative of the aforementioned Article 243R and Article 243ZA read with Article 243K of the Constitution. 58. In view of the fact, the present is a case which has been filed in the public interest we fell inclined to direct the Govt of Meghalaya to forthwith conduct the elections of Municipal Board, Shillong which for the time being will be held as per the existing laws and thereafter in due course in accordance with requirements of the provisions which the impugned Ordinance sought to introduce in the principal Act which has been found to be unconstitutional. In case it is found necessary to amend the principal Act so as to bring the provisions of the principal Act in tune with the provisions of Part IXA of the Constitution the election of the Municipal Board will be held again after the requisite amendments are made. This direction is being made notwithstanding the fact that no specific prayer in this regard has been made in the writ petition, because the Court is fully conscious of the orders passed by it in earlier PIL case, which was filed by these petitioners with prayer for holding the election and the period within which elections were to be held for the constitution of the new Board as per this Court's earlier direction having long expired hence so as to preserve the rights of the people of the concerned areas in the Shillong Municipality to elect their Municipal Councillors for constituting the Municipal Board at the earliest. We feel that the election must be held forthwith. Taking in our considerations all the aspects of the case and realising urgency of holding municipal elections, we further direct the State Govt to ensure the completion of the election process of the Shillong Municipal Board within a period of 2 months from now. In that regard the process of election which was completed by the State Govt or by its officers before the promulgation of the impugned Ordinance shall survive for the election and if other necessary formalities, which according to law, are to be carried out for the holding of the election the same may be completed within the aforementioned period of 2 months and no further. 59. Since petitioners have filed writ petition for the protection of the interest of a large number of people residing in the areas which are comprised, and form part of, Shillong Municipal Board and not for their own personal given, we direct that the State Govt shall pay them a sum of Rs.10,000/- by way of cost so as to enable them to defray the expenses which has been met by them in litigation. Writ petition is accordingly allowed with costs.