B.B. DEB, J- In this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners challenged the impugned notification dated 5th December, 2001 issued by the Government of Mizoram, terminating the membership of the petitioners who were the nominated members of "Mara Autonomous District Council" (shortly "The A.D.C."). The said notification reads as under: "Notification Dated Aizawl, the 5th Dec. 2001. No. DCA/E-108/88: In exercise of the power conferred under sub-paragraph (6A) of paragraph 2 of the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution of India read with sub-Rile (2) of Rule 8 of the Mizoram Autonomous District Council (Constitution and Conduct of Business) Rules, 1974, as amended from time to time, the Governor of Mizoram is pleased to terminate the appointment of the following nominated members viz. Pute C. Lawbei, S. Lalremthanga, Mylai Hlychho and Pi Lalbiaktluangi Sailo from the membership of Mara Autonomous District Council with immediate effect. By order and in the name of the Governor. Sd/- P. Chakraborty Secretary to the Govt. of Mizoram, District Council Affairs Department." 2. The petitioners also challenged the nomination of the respondent Nos. 4, 5 & 6 along with another, namely, Smti Lalbiaktluangi Sailo (shortly Mrs. Sailo) who had been nominated as members of the said A.D.C. by the State Government vide notification dated 6th December, 2001 which is quoted below: "Notification Dated Aizawl, the 6th Dec. 2001 No, DCA/E-108/88: In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-para (1) of Paragraph 2 of the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution of India, read with sub-rule (1) of Rule 7 of the Mizoram Autonomous District Council (Constitution and Conduct of Business of the District Councils) Rules, 1974 as amended from time to time, the Governor of Mizoram is pleased to nominate the following persons as members of the Mara Autonomous District Council with immediate effect, namely:- (1) Mr. Nolua, S/o Lairi, Lungbun. 2) Mrs. Lalbiaktluangi Sailo D/o Saichhuma Serkawr (3) Mr. Chialo, S/o Zapo (L), Tuipang. (4) Mr. H. Valai, S/o Siapo (L), Tongkalong. By order and in the name of the Governor. Sd/- P. Chakraborty Secretary to the Govt. Nolua, S/o Lairi, Lungbun. 2) Mrs. Lalbiaktluangi Sailo D/o Saichhuma Serkawr (3) Mr. Chialo, S/o Zapo (L), Tuipang. (4) Mr. H. Valai, S/o Siapo (L), Tongkalong. By order and in the name of the Governor. Sd/- P. Chakraborty Secretary to the Govt. of Mizoram District Council Affairs Department." The petitioners had been nominated by the Governor as members of the said "Mara Autonomous District Council" vide Notification No. DCA/E-108/88 dated 8th August, 2000 along with Mr Sailo (not a party before the Court) in exercise of power under para 2(1) of the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution of India. 3. Precisely, the writ petition contains that the Mara Autonomous District Council has been constituted pursuant to the provision of paragraph 20 B of the Sixth Schedule consisting of nineteen (19) members to be directly elected through adult franchise and four members to be nominated by the Governor pursuant to para 2(1) of the Sixth Schedule from among the eligible electors residing within "Mara Autonomous District Council" within the State of Mizoram. In the year 2000 AD election was held to constitute the "Mara Autonomous District Council" and the petitioners along with Mrs Sailo had been nominated as members of the said Autonomous District Council. One Shri K. Chiama, and elected member of the said ADC filed a notice of "No-confidence Motion" dated 4.12.2001 under sub-rule (1) of Rule 72 of the Mizoram Autonomous District Council (Constitution and Conduct of Business) Rules, 1974 and the Chairman fixed 6.12.2001 for discussion and voting thereon. To get rid of the anticipated fate of the No-confidence Motion, at the behest of the Chief Executive Member of the ADC the State Government processed the file hurriedly resulting in issuing of the impugned notification dated 5.12.2001 purportedly under sub-paragraph 6(A) of paragraph 2 of the Sixth Schedule, by which the tenure of the nominated membership of the petitioners have been terminated and on the following day vide another impugned notification dated 6.12.2001 the respondent Nos. 4, 5 & 6 along with Mrs. Sailo have been appointed as nominated members to the said ADC. 4. 4, 5 & 6 along with Mrs. Sailo have been appointed as nominated members to the said ADC. 4. Before terminating the tenure of the membership of the petitioners, no show cause notice was issued nor an opportunity of being heard was allowed and that was not in the interest of the ADC concerned but for motivated political purpose and in order to frustrate the proceeding of No-confidence Motion the impugned notifications have been issued. More so, the Governor has never been satisfied personally before according his approval to the proposal initiated by the State Government for terminating the tenure of the nominated membership of the petitioners and also for nominating fresh members and, as such, both the impugned orders have been issued without jurisdiction and having not followed the related mandatory provision of the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution of India, and, as such, the petitioners sought for quashing the aforesaid two notifications. 5. The State respondent contested the case by filing counter affidavit contending, inter alia, that having followed the related provisions of the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution of India, the Governor issued the impugned notification in exercise of his discretionary power as contemplated under paragraph 20BB of the Sixth Schedule and, as such, it is outside the purview of judicial review of this Court nor had the petitioners acquired any vested right to be retained as nominated members contrary to the 'pleasure' of the Governor. 6. It is further averred in paragraph 13 of the counter affidavit that the matter relating to termination of the nominated membership of the petitioners and induction of the new members had been proposed by the Chief Minister after deliberation with his colleagues while the Governor was camping in New Delhi. The proposal of the Council of Ministers had been sent to the Governor and the Governor accorded his approval on 5.12.2001 and, accordingly, the said notifications impugned in the writ petition have been issued on 5th & 6th December, 2001 respectively. 7. Heard learned senior counsel Mr S. Sailo, for the petitioners and Mr P. Pathak learned Advocate General, Mizoram, for the State respondent. 8. 7. Heard learned senior counsel Mr S. Sailo, for the petitioners and Mr P. Pathak learned Advocate General, Mizoram, for the State respondent. 8. An Autonomous District Council can be constituted under para 2(1) of the Sixth Schedule which runs as follows: "There shall be a District Council for each autonomous district consisting of not more than thirty members, of whom not more than four persons shall be nominated by the Governor and the rest shall be elected on the basis of adult suffrage." 9. The tenure of the members of the District Council is prescribed under sub-paragraph (6A) of paragraph 2 which reads as under: "The elected members of the District Council shall hold office for a term of five years from the date of appointed for the first meeting of the Council after the general elections to the Council, unless the District Council is sooner dissolved under paragraph 16 and a nominated member shall hold office at the pleasure of the Governor: Provided xxxx xxxx xxxx Povided xxxx xxxx xxxx" 10. Admittedly, "the ADC" consists of as many as 19 elected members and 4 nominated members and the petitioners along with Mrs Sailo had been appointed as nominated members to the said District Council vide notification dated 8th August, 2000. The impugned notification dated 5th December, 2001 terminated the tenure of four (4) nominated members, 3 being the petitioners and one Mrs Sailo (not party). The notification was issued under the signature of Secretary to the Government of Mizoram District Council Affairs Department, course, in the name of the Governor and a copy of the said notification was transmitted to the Secretary to the Governor of Mizoram. 11. The learned senior counsel Mr Sailo appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the impugned notification dated 5th December, 2001 terminating the nominated membership of the petitioners have been issued by the Government and at no point of time the Governor had taken any decision on his personal satisfaction, rather the notification was issued by the Government in exercise of its executive power and, as such, the said notification is liable to be quashed because the same has never been issued by the Governor in exercise of his discretionary power. 12. 12. The learned Advocate General, submits that in the interest of the "District Council", the Council of Ministers made a proposal for terminating the nomination of existing four (4) members including the petitioners and in their places the Council of Ministers proposed four (4) names for fresh nomination and as at the relevant time the Governor was camping in the New Delhi in official tour, the file had been placed before him in New Delhi and he accorded his approval. 13. From the submission of the learned counsel for the parties, it remains an admitted fact that the proposal for removal of the petitioners, and for inducting new nominated members in their places had been initiated by the Council of Ministers and the Governor only put his mark of approval. Neither of the two impugned orders had ever been generated in Raj Bhawan (Governor's Secretariat) and, as such, it cannot be inferred that the Governor in exercise of his discretion issued the said impugned orders, rather, on perusal of the departmental file it is transpired that both the orders have been issued on the proposal of the Council of Ministers and the Governor accorded his approval on the advice of the Council of Ministers and the Governor accorded his approval on the advice of the Council of Ministers and not in his own discretion. 14. Under Article 163 of the Constitution of India "the Governor in the exercise of his functions, except in so far as he is by or under this Constitution required to exercise his functions or any of them in his discretion" shall act on the advice of the Council of Ministers with the Chief Minister at the head. 15. 14. Under Article 163 of the Constitution of India "the Governor in the exercise of his functions, except in so far as he is by or under this Constitution required to exercise his functions or any of them in his discretion" shall act on the advice of the Council of Ministers with the Chief Minister at the head. 15. Before insertion of paragraph 20 BB in its application to the State of Tripura and Mizoram by "The Sixth Schedule to the Constitution (Amendment) Act, 1988 (with effect from 19.12.1988) and insertion of paragraph 20 BA in its application to the State of Assam by "The Sixth Schedule to the Constitution (Amendment) Act, 1995 (with effect from 12.9.1995), the area of discretionary power of the Governor has not been expressly identified by the Constitution, but some of the discretionary functions could be inferred from the Constitution, such as, whom to be appointed as Chief Minister while the numerical majority of a party in the Assembly is not intelligibly ascertainable, or to make recommendation for imposition of President's Rule in a State and the like. But, only in 1988 the Parliament has inserted a new paragraph, namely, para 20 BB in the Sixth Schedule in its application to the State of Tripura and Mizoram. For convenience sake the said paragraph is reproduced below: "20-BB. exercise of discretionary powers by the Governor in the discharge of his functions. - The Governor, in the discharge of his functions under sub-paragraphs (2) and (3) of paragraph 1, sub-paragraphs (1) and (7) of paragraph 2, sub-paragraph (3) of paragraph 3, sub-paragraph (4) of paragraph 4, paragraph 5, sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 6, sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 7, sub-paragraph (3) of paragraph 9, sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 14, sub-paragraph( 1) of paragraph 15 and sub-paragraph (1) and (2) of paragraph 16 of this Schedule, shall, after consulting the Council of Ministers, and if he thinks it necessary, the District Council or the Regional Council concerned, take such action as he considers necessary in his discretion." (emphasis supplied) Of course, subsequently in 1995 the Parliament inserted another provision viz. Para 20BA in its application to Sixth Schedule of the State of Assam. The said paragraph is quoted below: "20-B A. Exercise of discretionary powers by the Governor in the discharge of his functions. Para 20BA in its application to Sixth Schedule of the State of Assam. The said paragraph is quoted below: "20-B A. Exercise of discretionary powers by the Governor in the discharge of his functions. - The Governor in the discharge of his functions under sub-paragraph (2) and (3) of paragraph 1, sub-paragraphs (1), (6), sub-paragraph (6-A) excluding the first proviso and sub-paragraph (7) of paragraph 2, sub- paragraph (3) of paragraph 3, sub-paragraph (4) of paragraph 4, paragraph 5, sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 6, sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 7, sub-paragraph (4) of paragraph 8, sub-paragraph (3) of paragraph 9, sub-paragraph (3) of paragraph 10, sub-paragraph(l) of paragraph 15 and sub-paragraphs (1) and (2) of paragraph 16 of this Schedule, shall, after consulting the Council of Ministers and the North Cachar Hills Autonomous Council or the Karbi Anglong Autonomous Council, as the case may be, take such action as he considers necessary in his discretion." (emphasis supplied) 16. In the afore quoted provisions of para 20 BB and para 20 B A certain items of function under the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution of India, have been catalogized being the discretionary function of the Governor. It is the mandate of the Constitution that the function of the Governor to nominate any member to the Autonomous District Council pursuant to sub-para (1) of para 2 of the Sixth Schedule is his discretionary power in its application to the State of Tripura, Mizoram as well as Assam. Prior to the insertion of the afore quoted provisions nothing was expressly identified to be discretionary power of the Governor under the Sixth Schedule. So far termination of the nominated membership is concerned the provision of sub-para (6A) of paragraph 2 could be looked into. Under the said paragraph "a nominated member shall hold office at the pleasure of the Governor". Prior to the insertion of para 20 BA, the pleasure of the Governor of Assam under sub-paragraph (6A) of paragraph 2 was not required to be exercised by the Governor himself in his discretion. It could be exercised either on acting upon the advice of the Council of Ministers or by an authority whom the power was delegated with the Governor. It could be exercised either on acting upon the advice of the Council of Ministers or by an authority whom the power was delegated with the Governor. The said situation was once examined by this Court in Satyeswar Daolagnpu and others, petitioners- Vs- The Secretary to the Government of Assam & Ors., respondents reported in AIR 1974 Gauhati, 20 (Division Bench) and this Court held that the exercise of Governor's pleasure under para 2 (6A) of the Sixth Schedule had to be done "with the aid and advice" of the Council of Ministers and was not necessarily to be exercised by the Governor in his discretion. But after the insertion of para 20BA of the Sixth Schedule the afore quoted decision of our own High Court is no longer a good law in its application to the State of Assam though its applicability to the State of Tripura and Mizoram cannot be avoided in view of para 20BB of the Sixth Schedule. 17. Learned counsel for the petitioners referred a case law of our own High Court in D. Uphing Maslai and another- Vs-State of Assam and another reported in (2001)(2) GLT299: (2001) 3 GLR 510 and submits that function/power of the Governor under the Sixth Schedule is of discretionary nature and the Governor without being satisfied himself cannot act on the advice of the Council of Ministers. 18. On perusal of the afore quoted decision, I find myself in agreement with the ratio laid down as the same has been in consonance with para 20BA of the Sixth Schedule in its application to the State of Assam only. The discretionary power of the Governor of Assam includes among others under para 2(6A) of the Sixth Schedule. But, so far the State of Tripura & Mizoram are concerned, the catalogized item available in para 20BB of the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution of India, the pleasure doctrine as has been envisaged in para 2(6A) of the Sixth Schedule is not included therein and, as such, it cannot be held to be the discretionary power of the Governor in its application in the State of Tripura and Mizoram. 19. 19. From the afore mentioned analytical discussion of the Constitutional provisions, it is no longer resintegra that the power/ function of the Governor to nominate a member to as Autonomous District Council pursuant to para (2)(1) of the Sixth Schedule is the discretionary power of the Governor in view of para 20 BB as well as 20 BA of the Sixth Schedulev in its application to the State of Tripura and Mizoram as well as in the State of Assam. But, so far the termination of the tenure of nominated membership is concerned the pleasure doctrine of Governor under para 2 (6A) of the Sixth Schedule is the discretionary power of the Governor in its application to the State of Assam but not as such in its application to the State of Tripura and Mizoram, because of the fact that in the catalogized item under para 20 BB of the Sixth Schedule, the provision of para 2 (6A) of the Sixth Schedule remains not included and, as such, so far the impugned notification dated 5th December, 2001 is concerned by which the tenure of the petitioners, nominated membership had been terminated, the power of the Governor is nothing but an executive power and not of his discretionary one, but so far it relates to the notification dated 6th December 2001 by which new members have been nominated pursuant to para 2(1) of the Sixth Schedule, the power of the Governor is catalogized as his discretionary power. 20. Learned counsel Mr Sailo for the petitioners submits that the absence of sub-paragraph (6A) of paragraph 2 in the amended paragraph 20BB in its application to the State of Tripura and Mizoram is an accidental omission of the Parliament. 20. Learned counsel Mr Sailo for the petitioners submits that the absence of sub-paragraph (6A) of paragraph 2 in the amended paragraph 20BB in its application to the State of Tripura and Mizoram is an accidental omission of the Parliament. He developed his argument contending that while in case of making nomination of members to a District Council Governor's power under sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 2 is catalogised as discretionary power both in the amended para 20 BB in its application to the State of Tripura and Mizoram as well as in para 20 BA in its application to the State of Assam, the Parliament should not have committed discriminatory treatment in inserting sub-paragraph (6A) in para 2 of the Sixth Schedule in its application to the State of Assam in paragraph 20 BA while abstaining from insertion of the same in para 20 BB in its application to the State of Tripura & Mizoram. 21. Having regard to the fact that while para 20 BA in its application to the State of Assam has been inserted by "The Sixth Schedule to the Constitution (Amendment) Act, 1995", the Parliamentary was very much alive as to the catalogized discretionary power of the Governor already included in para 20 BB of the Sixth Schedule which was brought into being by "The Sixth Schedule to the Constitution (Amendment) Act, 1998" in its application to the State of Tripura and Mizoram. I am not in a position to share with the contention of the learned counsel that such Constitutional discrimination is an outcome of an accidental omission. Had the petitioners been aggrieved by the aforesaid discrimination they could have challenged the Constitutional validity of the same making the Union of India as a party and in absence of such challenge being made I am not called upon to decide this question in this petition. 22. Since the impugned notification dated 6th December, 2001 has been initiated by the Council of Ministers and the Governor acting upon the advice of the Council of Ministers accorded his approval and, as such, I am constrained to hold that the Governor has never exercised his discretionary power in issuing the impugned notification dated 6th December, 2001, and, as such, it is inconsistent with and contrary to the provision of para 20 BB of the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution of India, and, therefore, is liable to be quashed. 23. Since the termination of the tenure of nominated members of the petitioners has been issued by the State Government in the name of the Governor being the executive function of the latter, judicial review is permissible and, as such, I have carefully gone through the official notings available in the departmental file wherein the impugned notification dated 5th December, 2001 has been generated. From the notings dated 18.11.2000 initiated by the Deputy Secretary, it appears that the Chief Executive Member of "Mara Autonomous District Council" proposed for removal of the four nominated members on the ground that the said members including the petitioners had been nominated on the recommendation of "the previous executive committee' and that Executive Committee was already removed having lost the confidence of the majority on 8.11.2000. From the notings dated 5.12.2000 it appears that the Council of Ministers concurred with the proposal of the Chief Executive Members of the ADC. The Chief Executive Member also recommended four (4) names for being appointed as nominated member in place of the petitioners afresh, that was also approved by the Council of Ministers and the file was placed before the Governor who accorded his approval on 5th December, 2001. 24. From the notings available in the file it appears that the Chief Executive Member of Mara Autonomous District Council made a proposal for terminating the tenure of the membership of the petitioners and also made proposal for inducting four (4) nominated members afresh on the ground that the petitioners had been nominated by the former Chief Executive Member of the Autonomous District Council who had since been removed on a No-confidence Motion. There is nothing available in the departmental file to infer that for any misconduct and/or inefficiency and/or any other sorts of stigmatic activities, the proposal had been initiated, but for political reason, appears to be bonafide the proposal was initiated by the Chief Executive Member and after deliberation the Departmental Minister and the Hon'ble Chief Minister approved the said views, and, thereafter the Council of Ministers made proposal and the Governor on being so advised by the Council of Ministers put his mark of approval. In a democratic set up like ours, the tenure of the nominated members under the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution of India, is dependant on the pleasure of the Governor as envisaged under para 2(6A) of the Sixth Schedule, and since I have already held that the said pleasure doctrine is an executive power of the Governor for its application in the State of Tripura and Mizoram, and, thus in my considered opinion, the Governor has rightly approved the proposal of the Council of Ministers as the said item of the Governor's function has not been catalogized being a discretionary power under para 20 BB of the Constitution of India. But, so far induction of respondent Nos. 4, 5 & 6 along with Mr. Saiio is concerned, the Governor had to exercise his discretionary power in nominating the members to "the ADC" but unfortunately the Governor on acting upon "the advice of the Council of Ministers" approved the same and, as such, the induction of the members vide impugned notification dated 6th December, 2001 cannot be held to be constitutionally valid and, as such, I am constrained to quash the same so far it relates to respondent Nos. 4, 5 & 6 are concerned. 25. In the result, the writ petition is partly allowed. The notification dated 5th December, 2001 by which the tenure of the nominated membership of the petitioners was terminated suffers from no constitutional illegality and, as such, it requires no interference, but I am constrained to quash the notification dated 6th December, 2001 so far it relates to the nomination of respondents Nos. 4, 5 & 6 is concerned, and is hereby quashed. No order as to costs.