JUDGMENT B.P. Katakey, J. 1. The writ Petitioner, who was the Vice-President of Mizoram States Sports Council, has filed the present writ petition challenging the notifications dated 16.6.2004 (Annexure-6) and 18.6.04 (Annexure-7) issued by the Commissioner and Secretary, Sports, Youth Service Department, Government of Mizoram dissolving the Mizoram States Sports Council constituted Under Section 6 of the Mizoram States Sports Council Act, 2002 in exercise of the power Under Section 28 of the said Act and authorizing the Commissioner and the Secretary to the Government of Mizoram Sports and Youth Services Department to conduct day to day function of the States Sports Council, in exercise of the power Under Section 39 of the said Act till such time, the full time Secretary of the State Council is appointed or till the Mizoram Sports Council is re-constituted. 2. I have heard Mr. Lalramzauva, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Advocate General, assisted by Mr. N. Sailo, the learned State Counsel, appearing on behalf of the Respondents. 3. The facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition in brief, is that Mizoram State Sports Council (hereinafter referred to as the Sports council) was constituted by the Government of Mizoram in the year, 1976 for the purpose of promotion of sports amongst the Mizos in the State of Mizoram on the basis of an executive order. Thereafter the Government finding it expedient to constitute a sports council at the State level for securing greater measure for participation of the people in the sports and games and its promotion and to invest such sports council such special power for carrying out object of promotion and development of the games and the sport in the State of Mizoram, promulgated Mizoram State Sports Council Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). The Government of Mizoram in terms of the provisions of Section 3 read with Section 6and 7 of the said Act, constituted the Sports Council vide notification dated 21.8.2002 (Annexure 2). The election for the Vice-President and the Joint Secretary was thereafter held on 12.11.02 wherein, the present writ Petitioner was elected as Vice-President and Mr. Lungmuana as Joint Secretary. The Government of Mizoram in terms of the provisions of Section 3 read with Section 6and 7 of the said Act, constituted the Sports Council vide notification dated 21.8.2002 (Annexure 2). The election for the Vice-President and the Joint Secretary was thereafter held on 12.11.02 wherein, the present writ Petitioner was elected as Vice-President and Mr. Lungmuana as Joint Secretary. While the said executive body of the Sports Council was functioning w.e.f. 12.11.02 with the present writ Petitioner as the elected Vice President, the Government of Mizoram issued a notification dated 16.6.04 and corrigendum dated 17.6.04, in purported exercise of power Under Section 28of the Act, dissolving the sports council constituted Under Section 6 of the said Act with immediate effect, as the State Government was of the opinion that the said Sports council has not been able to carry out its objectives to its satisfaction. By another notification dated 18.6.04, and corrigendum dated 23.6.04, the Govt., of Mizoram in exercise of its power Under Section 39 of the Act authorized the Commissioner and Secretary, the Respondent No. 2 to conduct day to day functioning of the sports Council till such time a full time Secretary of the council is appointed or the Sports council is re-constituted. The writ Petitioner has challenged both this notifications dated 16.6.04 and 18.6.04 on the ground that the same were issued in complete violation of principles of natural justice and without application of mind and also on the ground of arbitrary exercise of the power. 4. Mr. Lalramzuava, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that the writ Petitioner, being the representative of a recognized State level sports association, was inducted as the Member of the Sports Council and thereafter, he was elected as the Vice-President by the members of Sports Council in terms of the provisions of Section 7(2) of the said Act. The learned Counsel has further submitted that the Sports Council constituted vide notification dated 21.8.02 started functioning after the election to the post of Vice-President and the Joint Secretary was over Government, thereafter abruptly, without issuing any show cause notice and without affording the Sports Council constituted under the provisions of the Act, any opportunity of being heard, dissolved the same by issuing the notification dated 16.6.04 on the ground that the Council has not been able to carry out its objectives to its satisfaction. According to the learned Counsel, as the order passed by the State Government is stigmatic, as it casts aspersion on the Sports Council, including the elected Vice-President, the writ Petitioner is entitled to a notice to show cause and as no such notice was ever issued, the notification dissolving the Sports Council is illegal, being violative of basic principles of natural justice. The further submission of learned Counsel is that though the State Government has the power to dissolve the Sports Council constituted under the Act, in terms of the provisions contained in the Section 28of the Act, such power can only be exercised by giving the specific reason and also cannot be exercised without affording the council a reasonable opportunity to show cause and also cannot be exercised arbitrarily as has been done in the instant case. According to the learned Counsel, the consequential notification dated 18.6.04 authorizing the Respondent No. 2 to conduct day to day functioning of the State Council is also illegal and liable to be set aside. Mr. Lalramzuava learned Counsel has submitted that as the both the notifications dated 16.6.04 and 18.6.04 are illegal being arbitrary and in violation of the basic principles of natural justice, the same are required to be set aside and quashed and the sports Council constituted with the present writ Petitioner as Vice-President is to be resorted, till the term, which is going to be expired on completion of 3 years i.e. on 20.8.05. Referring to the statements made in the affidavit-in-opposition, on behalf of the Respondents to the effect that 'on random study and examination of the achievements and performance of the council vis-a-vis the objectives, annual programme and filed works, it has been the opinion of the Government that the Council has failed to carry out its objectives mainly because there is no full time Executive Secretary who can organize and supervise all activities of the council and also the statement in the affidavit in opposition to the effect that 'a random study of the examination of the achievements and past performance vis-a-vis the objectives for Sports promotion, implementation of the scheme for development of sports infructure under CSS and NEC, the Respondent Government is not fully satisfied with the functioning of the Council and the statements that serious irregularities and funds diversion were detected, which were due to non-appointment of the full time Secretary of the Council, the learned Counsel has submitted that it is evident from the said statements in the affidavit in opposition that the council has been dissolved on the allegations of its failure to function properly to achieve goal and its objectives and also for financial irregularities. According to the learned Counsel, the principle of natural justice requires that they ought to have been given a notice to show cause before dissolving the said council by the Government in exercise of the power Under Section 28 of the Act, which has admittedly not been given by the Government as the Government has taken a stand that show cause notice, before the dissolution of the Council, is not required to be given under any provisions of the said Act. 5. Mr. Lalramzauva, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, in support of his contention has placed reliance in the decision of the Apex Court in D.K. Yadav v. J.M.A. Industries Ltd. reported in (1993) 3 SCC 259 and in Ratan Lal Sharma v. Managing Committee, Dr. Hari Ram (Co-education) Higher Secondary School and Ors. reported in AIR 1993 SC 2155 . 6. Mr. Lalramzauva, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, in support of his contention has placed reliance in the decision of the Apex Court in D.K. Yadav v. J.M.A. Industries Ltd. reported in (1993) 3 SCC 259 and in Ratan Lal Sharma v. Managing Committee, Dr. Hari Ram (Co-education) Higher Secondary School and Ors. reported in AIR 1993 SC 2155 . 6. The learned Advocate General appearing for the Respondents submits that the Government has dissolve, the existing Council with a view to re-constitute the same with full time Secretary without harming and discrediting any individual members of the Council, as it was found on random study and examination of the achievements and the performance of the council that the Council has failed to carry out its objectives mainly because there was no full time Executive Secretary who can organize and supervise on all the activities of the Council and also fund diversions were detected which were mainly attributable to the non-appointment of the full time Secretary of the Council. The learned Advocate General has further submitted that as the action of the Government was not to discredit any individual, no prior notice or opportunity of hearing is required to be given to the said Council before passing any order of dissolution Under Section 28 of the Act. In any case the Petitioner being a member of the council is not entitled to any notice, as such member can be removed by the Govt. at any time. The further submission of the learned Advocate General is that no relief can be granted to the Petitioner in the present writ petition, in view of the fact that neither the Sports Council including elected Joint Secretary nor members are parties to the present writ petition, and therefore, they may not be interested in revival of the Sports Council which cannot be revived at the instance of the writ Petitioner only, as because had the other persons been aggrieved by the Government action they would have definitely approached the Court, challenging the said action of the Government. The learned Advocate General in support of his contention has placed reliance on decision of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 661-662 of 2003 (Pu Myllai Hlychho and Ors. v. State of Mizoram and Ors.) decided on 11.01.2005. 7. The learned Advocate General in support of his contention has placed reliance on decision of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 661-662 of 2003 (Pu Myllai Hlychho and Ors. v. State of Mizoram and Ors.) decided on 11.01.2005. 7. Section 3 of the Act provides for constitution of the Sports Council with the objective to plan and strive for all round development of all games and sports in the State, to inculcate discipline, to build character, to promote team spirit and patriotism through games and foster a spirit of comradeship between the different associations. The said Sports Council is a body corporate and can sue or be sued in the name of the Secretary of the Council. Section 6 of the Act stipulates the number of members constituting in the Sports Council. Section 7 provides that the Council shall have the office bearer, i.e. one President, one Vice-President, one Secretary, one Financial Secretary. The Minister incharge of the department of Sports is the ex-officio President and the Government is to appoint the Secretary from amongst the nominee of the Government or from amongst the representatives of State level association in consultation with the President of the Council. The Financial Secretary is also required to be appointed by the Government. The post of Vice-President and the Joint Secretary of the Council are required to be filled up by election by the members from amongst themselves. 8. For better appreciation, Section 6 and Section 7 of the Act is quoted in entirely: Section 6 : The Mizoram Sports Council shall consist of the following members, namely- (A) (i) The Minister incharge of Sports Department shall be the Ex-officio President of the Counsel. (ii) The Secretary to the Government of Mizoram, Department of Sports and Youth Services (or his representative).... Ex-officio Member. (iii) The Director of Sports and Youth Services (or his representatives).... Ex-officio Member. (iv) The Joint Secretary to the Govt. of Mizoram Department of Sports and Youth Services.... Ex-officio Member. (v) The Joint Director of Sports and Youth Services.... Ex-officio Member. (vi) One member each nominated by the recognized State Level Sports Association to represent such State level Association. (vii) The State Government shall have right to nominate two other member as official nominee. Such official nominee may be drawn from different departments or Semi-Government organizations. (viii) The State Government shall have right to nominate three persons as non-official nominees. (vi) One member each nominated by the recognized State Level Sports Association to represent such State level Association. (vii) The State Government shall have right to nominate two other member as official nominee. Such official nominee may be drawn from different departments or Semi-Government organizations. (viii) The State Government shall have right to nominate three persons as non-official nominees. Such non-official nominees may be drawn from outstanding sportsmen or journalist or leading citizens or pensioners or women or university-teachers. (B) (i) The Council may induct one or more persons to represent ad-hoc State Level Associations, as co-opted members of the Council. (ii) On similar Principle, the Council may invite representatives of District Sports Committees, to attend the Council meeting. (iii) The co-opted members or invites shall not have the right to vote in cases of votes being taken on an issue, except with the permission of the meeting. Section 7: (1) The Council shall have office bearers as follows namely: (a) One President (b) One Vice-President (c) One Secretary of the Council (d) One Financial Secretary (e) One Joint Secretary (2) The office bearers of the Council under Sub-section (1) shall be filled up as follows: (a) The Minister in charge of the Department of Sports shall be an ex-officio President of the Council. (b) The Vice-President of the Council shall be elected by the members from amongst themselves. (c) The Government, in consultation with the President of the Council, shall appoint Secretary from amongst the nominees of the Government (officials or non-officials) or from amongst the representatives of the State Level Association. (d) The Financial Secretary shall be appointed by the Government. (e) The Joint Secretary of the Council shall be elected by members of the Council from amongst themselves. 9. Section 28 of the Act empowers the State Government to dissolve the council by order in writing specifying the reasons thereof, if in the opinion of the Government the Council has failed to carry out its objectives or misused the powers conferred by or under the Act. On such dissolution, all the assets and liabilities of the Council vests in the Government. 10. On such dissolution, all the assets and liabilities of the Council vests in the Government. 10. Section 39 is the residuary provisions which stipulates that in regards to the matter not specifically covered by the provisions of the Act, rules or regulation made thereunder, such matter may be governed by the decision of the Government and in such situation the views of the council is required to be submitted to the State Government for consideration. 11. The Government of Mizoram in exercise of the power conferred by Section 3 read with Section 6and 7 of the Act constituted the Sports Council vide notification dated 21.8.2002 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) with the following Office Bearers and member: 1. Minister, Sports and Youth Services, Ex-officio President. 2. Secretary, Sports and Youth Services Ex-officio Member. 3. Director, Sports and Youth Services, Ex-officio Member. 4. Jt. Secretary, Sports and Youth Services, Ex-officio Member. 5. Pu Lalthansanga, Jt. Secretary, Finance Member 6. Jt. Director, Sports and Youth Services, Member 7. Pu Lalsawmzuala, C.E.O., K.V.I., Secretary 8. Pu. J. Lalhmuliana, Republic Veng, Aizawl, Finance Secretary 9. Pu. H.D. Renthlei, Editor, Mizo Express/Sports Week, Republic Vety Mual, Aizawl, Member 10. Pu K. Lalthawmmawia, Tuikual 'N', Member 11. One representative each from recognized State Level Sports Association, Member The terms of the State council is ordinarily 3 years as provided under Section 9(1) of the Act, unless otherwise dissolved by the State Government in terms of the Act. 12. As required under Sub-Section 2 of Section 7 of the Act, the election to the post of Vice-President and Joint Secretary of the State Government was held on 12.11.02 wherein the writ Petitioner was declared elected as Vice-President and one Mr. N. Luangmua was elected as Joint Secretary. By virtue of their election in terms of the provisions of Section 7(2) of the Act they become Vice-President and the Joint Secretary of the State Council respectively. The constitution of the said Sports Council and the Office Bearers was thus completed. N. Luangmua was elected as Joint Secretary. By virtue of their election in terms of the provisions of Section 7(2) of the Act they become Vice-President and the Joint Secretary of the State Council respectively. The constitution of the said Sports Council and the Office Bearers was thus completed. The Respondents could not produce anything before this Court to show that the Government at any point of time raised any objection to the functioning of the said council, before the Council was dissolved vide notification dated 16.6.04 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) in exercise of the power conferred Under Section 28 of the Act on the ground that the Council has not been able to carry out its objectives to its satisfaction. Upon dissolution of the Council, all assets and liabilities vest in the Government. Government issued another notification dated 18.6.04 in exercise of the power conferred by Section 39 of the Act authorizing the Commissioner and Secretary, Govt. of Mizoram Sports and Welfare Services department to conduct day to day functioning of the Council till such time a full time Secretary is appointed or till the Council is re-constituted. The provisions contained in the Section 39 of the Act is a residuary provision empowering the Government to take a decision in regard to the matter, not specifically covered by the Act, rules and regulation made there under and hence, the Government has issued the said notification dated 18.6.04 in exercise of its power Under Section 39of the act. 13. The writ Petitioner in the writ petition has categorically stated that before issuing the order of dissolution dated 16.6.04 on the ground that Sports Council has not been able to carry out its objective to its satisfaction, the Government has not issued any notice or the Sports Council was not given any reasonable opportunity of being heard. The Respondents in their affidavit has admitted that no such notice or opportunity of being heard was given to the Council before issuing the notification dissolving the council, which according to the Respondents is not required to be issued as Section 28 does not stipulate issuance of such notice or affording any opportunity of being heard before passing any order of dissolution of the Council. The Respondents in the affidavit in opposition has also stated that the Government has dissolved the Sports Council on the ground that it has not been able to carry out its functions to its satisfaction and there was serious financial irregularities and fund diversion which were basically due to the non appointment of full time Secretary to the Council to co-ordinate and supervise all the activities including the financial transaction. 14. Section 28 of the Act empowers the Government to dissolve the Council if the Government is of the opinion that the Council has failed to carry out its objective or misused the power conferred by or under the Act. The Government, before passing any order dissolving the Council in exercise of its power Under Section 28(1) of the Act, is naturally required to make an enquiry to satisfy itself whether the Council has failed to carry out its objective or misused the power conferred by or under the Act. Without making any such inquiry, if an order of dissolution is made by the Government, the same would be arbitrary exercise of the power. For the purpose of making such enquiry, the Government is therefore, required to give a notice to the Council to show cause as to why the Council shall not be dissolved intimating the reasons for which it has failed to carry out its objective and also intimating the Council about the alleged misuse of the power conferred by or under Act. In the instant case, it is an admitted position that no notice was ever issued or the Council was given a chance of hearing before issuance of the notification dated 16.6.04 by the Government. 15. In D.K. Yadav (supra), the Apex Court while dealing with the matter relating to disciplinary action has held that the duty to give reasonable opportunity to be heard will be implied from the nature of the function to be performed by the authority which has the power to take punitive or damaging action. It has further been held that even executive authorities which take administrative action involving any deprivation or restriction on inherent fundamental rights of citizens, must take care to see that justice is not only done but manifestly appears to be done and they have duty to proceed in a way which is free from even the appearance of arbitrary unreasonableness or unfairness. The authority has to act in a manner which is patently impartial and meets the requirement of natural justice. 16. In Ratan Lal Sharma (supra), the Apex Court has held that in administrative law, rules of natural justice are foundational and fundamental concept and the principles of natural justice are part of the legal and judicial procedure. The principles of natural justice are applicable to almost whole the range of administrative powers. 17. The object of the Rule of audi alteram partem is to ensure a fair hearing and to ensure that there is no failure of justice. In administrative law, rules of natural justice are foundational and fundamental concept and law is now well settled that the principles of natural justice are also applicable to almost whole range of administrative powers. Section 28 of the Act though does not specifically provide for issuance of any notice or giving any opportunity of being heard, before dissolution of the Council, rule of audi alteram partem is to be read into it as the said power can only be exercised if the Government finds that the Council has failed to carry out its objective or misused the power conferred by or under the Act. Whether the council has failed to carry out its objectives or not or whether it has misused the power conferred by or under the Act can only be ascertained by holding an enquiry. Further, if an order of dissolution is passed without holding such enquiry and without giving any opportunity to show cause, such order would not be just, fair and reasonable and would be contrary to the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In the instant case, admittedly, no such notice was issued or enquiry was held before passing the order of dissolution under Section28 of the Act. The learned Advocate General tried to justify the action of not issuing notice by placing reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Pu Myllia Hlychho (supra), wherein the Apex Court has held that the nominated members of the District Council has no right of hearing before they are removed, as the members of the council were nominated by the Government and they hold office during the pleasure of the Government. In the instant case, the Petitioner was not a member nominated by the Government, he was the member of the Council as a representative of the State level Sports Association and therefore the said decision of the Apex Court is not applicable in the fact and circumstances of the instant case. The Government action of dissolution of the Sports Council being arbitrary, as no notice was issued before the said order was passed, the same cannot be held to be legal and valid. 18. The Court is now required to see whether the Council, which was constituted vide notification dated 21.8.02, the term of which is ordinarily be three years, can be restored, upon recording the findings that the notification dated 16.6.04 dissolving the council is not legal and valid. The present writ petition has been filed by the Vice-President of the Council, who was elected by the members from amongst themselves. The writ Petitioner has not made even the Joint Secretary, who was elected as such, by the members of the Council, a party in the present writ petition, not to speak of the other members, as reflected in the notification dated 21.8.02. The said members also have not approached this Court challenging the Government's action of dissolution of the Council. In the absence of any challenge by the other members it may be presumed that the other members of the Council are not interested in the matter and also for restoration of the Council constituted vide notification dated 21.8.02. Moreover, the term of the Council being three years under Section 9(1) of the Act, the same is going to expire on 20.8.2005. At this stage, if any order is passed by this Court restoring the council constituted by the said notification 21.8.02, it may lead to anomalous situation as the other members of the Council may not be interested for such restoration and the writ Petitioner who was elected as Vice-President by the other members of the Council shall only be the member of the said Council who has challenged the Government's action. Section 6 of the Act provides that the Council shall consist at least 11 members, who elect Vice-President and Joint Secretary from amongst themselves. Therefore, the only Vice-President cannot function as the Council even if his position is restored as Member/Vice-President of the Council. 19. Section 6 of the Act provides that the Council shall consist at least 11 members, who elect Vice-President and Joint Secretary from amongst themselves. Therefore, the only Vice-President cannot function as the Council even if his position is restored as Member/Vice-President of the Council. 19. That being the position, if a writ is issued in the instant case, the said writ would be an ineffective writ, which shall not be issued by this Court. Moreover, as stated above, the term of the Council, had it not been dissolved, would have come to an end on 20.8.05. Therefore, though this Court has held that the notification dated 16.6.04 dissolving the Council is illegal and arbitrary, this Court is refrained from issuing any writ restoring the Council constituted vide notification dated 21.8.02 for the reasons stated above. But considering the facts and circumstances of this case, the State Respondents are directed to constitute the Council as required Under Section Sec, 6 and 7 of the Act and to hold the election to the post of Vice-President and Joint Secretary in terms of the provisions of the Act within a period of 1 (one) month from today, so that the object for which the Act was promulgated can be achieved. During that period of 1 (one) month, the Respondent No. 2 shall conduct day to day function of the Council and shall not take any major policy decision till the constitution of the Sports Council, as directed by this Court. 20. With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the fact that this Court has recorded the finding that the order of dissolution of the Sports Council was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, this Court finds it fit and proper to award a cost of Rs.5,000/- to be paid by the State Respondent to the writ Petitioner for their illegal action.