JUDGMENT H. Baruah, J. 1. This instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed for setting aside the impugned Notification No. D32020/1/98-GAD/SHDC/Loose dated 18.8.2009 (Annexure-XVII) whereby and whereunder the interim period of Sinlung Hills Development Council has been revived for 2 years with immediate effect and appointed Pu Lalmalsawma Darngawn, Respondent No. 4 as the Chairman of the Sinlung Hills Development Council for the renewed interim period and also for a direction to appoint the Petitioner No. 2 as Chairman of the Sinlung Hills Development Council being the President of the Hmar Peoples' Convention. 2. The necessary facts for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition may be projected as under:- Hmar Peoples' Convention is an Association which went underground since May, 1989. On 27.7.1994, the Government of Mizoram and the Petitioners' Association entered into an amicable settlement by Memorandum of Settlement dated 27.7.1994 (Annexure II). Per Clause 5.4 of the said Memorandum of Settlement for social, economic, cultural and educational development of the people of the north-eastern parts of Mizoram, a separate fund is to be earmarked for the schemes specified for implementation within the council. 3. According to Clause 5.5 of the said Memorandum of Settlement the composition of the Sinlung Hills Development Council during the interim period of 2 years shall be as follows:- 1. President Hmar People's Convention Chairman 2. Any sitting MLA of the area (to be nominated by Govt.) Vice Chairman 3. 17 Nominated members from the area by Govt.) Members 4. All sitting MLAs of the area Member 5. Representative of Finance Department Members 6. Representative of Planning Department Member 7. Representative of Rural Development Department Member 8. Deputy Commissioner concerned Member 9. Development Officer (Senior IAS or MCS Officer) Member Vide notification No. D.32020/22/96-HMP dated 18.9.1997 it was notified that the interim period shall commence from 27.8.1997. In pursuance of the Memorandum of Settlement under Clause 5.5, Sh. Lalrosiem, President of Hmar Peoples' Convention (for short HPC) and Sh. Khumte Hmar were appointed as Chairman and Vice Chairman respectively vide notification dated 8.5.1997 of the Sinlung Hills Development Council with immediate effect for a period of 2 years and the aforesaid notification was published in the Official Gazette on 13.5.1997. The Respondent No. 2 herein vide notification No. No. D.32020/1/98-GAD/SHDC dated 27.5.1999 after expiry of term of 2 years appointed Sh. The Respondent No. 2 herein vide notification No. No. D.32020/1/98-GAD/SHDC dated 27.5.1999 after expiry of term of 2 years appointed Sh. Hmingchungnunga as the Chairman of the said Sinlung Hills Development Council and it is claimed that such appointment was made in gross violation of the Memorandum of Settlement. 4. By various notifications (Annexure VII, VIII, IX, XI, XII, XIII, XIV and XV) the interim period of the Sinlung Hills Development Council had been extended from time to time. The last extension of the interim period commenced on and from 1.12.2006 for a period of 2 years. 5. On account of ceasing to function as Chairman by Pu Hmingchungnunga of the Sinlung Hills Development Council on his resignation, Pu Lalmalsawma Darngawn was appointed as Chairman of the interim Sinlung Hills Development Council vide notification dated 1st May, 2002 (Annexure-X). Vide notification dated 10th February, 2009 (Annexure-XVI) the interim period of Sinlung Hills Development Council was dissolved with immediate effect until further orders in supersession of the Government notification dated 13th October, 2008 and the Secretary cum Development Officer of Sinlung Hills Development Council was directed to take over the charge of the Council. However, in supersession of the notification dated 10th February, 2009 the interim period of the Sinlung Hills Development Council was revived for a period of 2 years with immediate effect and Respondent No. 4 herein was appointed as Chairman of the Sinlung Hills Development Council for the period of 2 years. 6. The writ Petitioners on account of appointment of Pu Lalmalsawma Darngawn as Chairman of the Sinlung Hills Development Council for the renewed period of 2 years has approached this Court by filing this writ petition for the reliefs as indicated herein before. 7. This writ petition is resisted by the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 by filing counter affidavit. Respondent No. 4, however, has not filed any counter affidavit as against the writ petition. It is contended in the counter affidavit by the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 that the appointment of Chairman of Sinlung Hills Development Council was made initially with the president of the HPC. Subsequently on account of multiple factions within the party, on the leadership crisis, the Government of Mizoram adopted a democratic view so that the SHDC could function for the best interest of the people for whom it is constituted. Subsequently on account of multiple factions within the party, on the leadership crisis, the Government of Mizoram adopted a democratic view so that the SHDC could function for the best interest of the people for whom it is constituted. The Government of Mizoram dissolved the interim period under the Chairmanship of Pu Hmingchungnunga to make SHDC functional in a meaningful way. However as guided by the rules, the dissolution of the interim period of SHDC was revived subsequently with new council Chairman and members. It is also submitted by the Respondents that the Government of Mizoram having found the social, political condition of the area and HPC party not sound to establish a popular development council, the interim period of the council has again revived by appointing Respondent No. 4 as Chairman of the SHDC for a period of 2 years w.e.f. 18.8.2009. On account of multiple factions within the HPC party and every leader of the faction having claimed to be the president of the HPC party, Government of Mizoram took decision to revive the interim period of the council for 2 years and to run the same through Respondent No. 4. The Respondents, therefore, in view of the above contention prayed dismissal of the writ petition. 8. The Petitioner filed affidavit in reply wherein it has been contended that per Clause 5.5 of the Memorandum of Settlement the president of the HPC should be the Chairman of the SHDC during the interim period of 2 years. As the interim period of 2 years has been extended from time to time it is incumbent on the Respondents to appoint the succeeding president of the HPC to the post of Chairman including the Petitioner No. 2 who has been elected to the post of president HPC in the last election held on 16.6.2009. The Petitioner thus, having vested right for being appointed as Chairman of the council by virtue of his status and election as president of the HPC, allegation of multiple faction within the party has been denied and contended that HPC is a single political party recommended by the Election Commission of India. Since Respondent No. 4 did not hold the post of the president of the HPC at the time of appointment as Chairman of SHDC vide notification dated 18.8.2009, his appointment as Chairman cannot sustain. Since Respondent No. 4 did not hold the post of the president of the HPC at the time of appointment as Chairman of SHDC vide notification dated 18.8.2009, his appointment as Chairman cannot sustain. It is also contended in the reply affidavit by the Petitioner that since the interim period of the council has continued till today, Respondent No. 4 who is not the president of the HPC cannot be appointed as Chairman in violation of the terms of the agreement as contained in the Memorandum of Settlement. 9. The Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 filed additional affidavit in opposition against the affidavit in reply wherein it has been specifically contended that per Clause 5.7 of the Memorandum of Settlement signed between the Government of Mizoram and the HPC, the Government of Mizoram is within its jurisdiction to appoint any other person as Chairman of the council per Clause 5.5. President of the HPC is entitled to be appointed as Chairman of the SHDC for an interim period of 2 years only. Therefore, the claim of the writ Petitioner that there is a violation of the Clause 5.5 cannot sustain. It is also contended that since initial period is over, the Government in its wisdom can appoint anyone as Chairman of the SHDC. The Government of the Mizoram has not violated any of the clauses of the Memorandum of Settlement entered on 27.7.1994. The Respondents also in their affidavit counter affidavit claimed that at no point of time the Petitioner No. 2 has been elected as president of the HPC. The claim of the Petitioner No. 2 that he has been elected as president of the HPC for a term of 5 years is in violation of the Article 18(2) Chapter VIII of the Constitution of HPC. 10. In view of the contention raised in the counter affidavit as well as additional affidavit in opposition the Petitioner in his rejoinder affidavit contends that since the Election Commission of India vide its letter dated 4.3.2009 recognized the Petitioner No. 2 as president of the HPC and therefore, there can be no question of appointment of any other person other than the Petitioner No. 2 as Chairman of the SHDC. It is further contended that the Government has violated the terms of the Clause 5.5 of the Memorandum of Settlement entered into on 27.7.1994 between the Government of Mizoram and the HPC and therefore, the appointment of private Respondent No. 4 as Chairman of SHDC for the interim period is illegal. 11. We have heard Mr. C. Lalramzauva, learned senior Counsel assisted by Mr. A.R. Malhotra, Mr. J. Lalfakawma and Mr. T.J. Lalnuntluanga, Advocates appearing for and on behalf of the writ Petitioners as well as Mrs. Helen Dawngliani, learned G.A. for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. 12. There appears no dispute in regard to the Memorandum of Settlement that entered between the Government of Mizoram and the HPC. Such settlement was entered into on 27th July, 1994. The signatories of the settlement was the then Chief Secretary, Govt. of Mizoram, Sh. Lalfak Zuala and Hmingchungnung, the then President of the Hmar People's Convention. This Memorandum of Settlement contains altogether 6 (six) clauses. Clause 5.5 speaks for composition of the council. It reads as under:- 1. President Hmar People's Convention Chairman 2. Any sitting MLA of the area (to be nominated by Govt.) Vice Chairman 3. 17 Nominated members from the area by Govt.) Members 4. All sitting MLAs of the area Members 5. Representative of Finance Department Member 6. Representative of Planning Department Member 7. Representative of Rural Development Department Member 8. Deputy Commissioner concerned Member 9. Development Officer (Sr. IAS or MCS Officer) Member According to this clause the President of the Hmar Peoples' Convention (HPC) shall be the Chairman of the Sinlung Hills Development Council (SHDC) for an interim period of 2 years. SHDC was to take effect on and from 27th August, 1997 per notification dated 18th September, 1997 (Annexure-III). It also appears from Annexure-IV, the notification dated 8th May, 1997 that the Petitioner No. 2 being the President of the HPC was appointed as its Chairman while Pu Khumte Hmar had been appointed as Vice Chairman of the SHDC vide notification No. D.32020/22/96-HMP dated 17.4.1997 and their tenure per notification would be for a period of 2 years. But after expiry of the period of 2 years of the appointment of the Petitioner No. 2 as Chairman Pu Hmingchungnunga was appointed as Chairman of the SHDC with immediate effect until further orders. 13. But after expiry of the period of 2 years of the appointment of the Petitioner No. 2 as Chairman Pu Hmingchungnunga was appointed as Chairman of the SHDC with immediate effect until further orders. 13. It appears from various notifications marked as Annexures VII, VIII, IX, XI, XII, XIII, XIV and XV, the tenure of the SHDC was extended from time to time for different period but on account of resignation of the Chairman namely Pu Hmingchungnunga, the Government of Mizoram appointed Pu Lalmalsawma Darngawn as Chairman of the SHDC vide notification dated 1st November, 2002 (Annexure X) until further orders. Thereafter, the Government of Mizoram extended the interim period of SHDC for a period of 2 years w.e.f. 1st December, 2006 and appointed Pu Hmingchungnunga as Chairman of the SHDC from 1st December, 2006 for the interim extended period. However, Government of Mizoram vide notification dated 10th February, 2009 (Annexure-XVI) in supersession of the notification dated 13th October, 2008 dissolved the interim period of SHDC with immediate effect until further order and the Secretary cum Development Officer of SHDC was allowed to take charge of the council. Vide notification dated 18th August, 2009 (Annexure XVIII) the notification dated 10.2.2009 was superseded and the interim period of SHDC was revived with immediate effect. By the same notification the Respondent No. 4 was also appointed as Chairman of SHDC with immediate effect for a period of 2 years. 14. From the above acts and omissions that resorted to by the Government of Mizoram it appears to us that in accordance with Clause 5.5 of the Memorandum of Settlement it (Govt. of Misread) appointed various persons as Chairman of the SHDC for different period. Mr. C. Lalramzauva, the learned senior counsel in the face of the appointments of various Chairman of the SHDC by various notifications contended that since the interim tenure of the SHDC had been extended from time to time per provisions of Clause 5.5 of the Memorandum of Settlement, the Petitioner No. 2 being appointed as its Chairman, he ought to have continued as such. Since Clause 5.5. Since Clause 5.5. speaks about the president of the HPC to be eligible for appointment as Chairman of SHDC, the Petitioner No. 2 being elected as the president of the HPC there was no reason on the part of the Government of Mizoram to appoint the Respondent No. 4 as its Chairman of the SHDC who was never elected as president of the HPC at any point of time. It was also argued by Mr. C. Lalramzauva that the Petitioner No. 2 was elected as president of the HPC in the election held on 16.6.2009. Though the Respondents stake claim of multiple faction within the party, they being unable to place any convincing evidence such claim heavily falls on the ground. Mr. C. Lalramzauva, further argued that the Respondents also fail to place any material to show that the Respondent No. 4 is the president of the HPC. This being the position in the face of the record, Mr. C. Lalramzauva, the learned senior counsel argued that appointment of Respondent No. 4 as the Chairman of SHDC is in gross violation of Clause 5.5 of the Memorandum of Settlement. 15. From bare reading of the Clause 5.5 it appears to us that the SHDC is to be constituted for a period of 2 years that too of interim nature and the president of the HPC should be the Chairman of the SHDC. This goes to show that the SHDC is to be constituted for an interim period of 2 years with the President of HPC as its Chairman. It is nowhere indicated in Clause 5.5 that the president of the HPC should continue as Chairman after the expiry of interim period of 2 years. 16. Mrs. Helen Dawngliani, learned G.A. appearing for the State Respondents though claimed about faction within the HPC, she was unable to place any materials to substantiate. She was also unable to place any material before this Court to substantiate that the Respondent No. 4 was a president of the HPC at the relevant point of time. Her inability, therefore, speaks for that Respondent No. 4 though appointed as Chairman of the SHDC he was never a president of the HPC at any point of time. She was also unable to place any material before this Court to substantiate that the Respondent No. 4 was a president of the HPC at the relevant point of time. Her inability, therefore, speaks for that Respondent No. 4 though appointed as Chairman of the SHDC he was never a president of the HPC at any point of time. From the records and the annexure it also appears to this Court that Pu Hmingchungnunga was the earlier president of the Hmar Peoples' Convention and he was also a signatory of the Memorandum of Settlement during whose time it came into existence. After expiry of the tenure of the Petitioner No. 2 as Chairman, Pu Hmingchungnunga was appointed as Chairman of the SHDC and thereafter Pu Lalmalsawma Darngawn was also appointed as Chairman of the SHDC vide notification dated 1st May, 2002 (Annexure-X). It is nowhere indicated that those two persons who were appointed ad Chairman of SHDC were president of the HPC after the Petitioner No. 2. Such appointments clearly go to show that for the interim period various persons were appointed as Chairman of the SHDC without having the qualification as president of the HPC. In view of the provisions of Clause 5.5 and the subsequent acts and omissions that resorted to by the Government of Mizoram it cannot straightaway be said rather held that the president of HPC should always be the Chairman of the SHDC and none else. 17. Mrs. Helen Dawngliani, learned G.A. leaning to the provisions of Clause 5.7 of the Memorandum of Settlement strenuously argued that the President of the HPC shall be the Chairman of the council initially and such Chairman shall hold the office for a period of 2 years initially who will be provided with various parks like vehicle, residential quarter, personal staff, etc. Thus, the claim of the Petitioner No. 2 that appointment of private Respondent No. 4 is illegal and violative of Clause 5.5 cannot sustain. According to Mrs. Helen Dawngliani, learned G.A. the Chairman of the council will initially be the president of HPC for a period of 2 years only but after expiry of the interim period of 2 years in respect of composition of the council, the Government shall decide in consultation with the interim council and thereafter the term of the office of the Chairman and the council shall be 3 years. The Petitioner No. 2 was appointed as Chairman of the SHDC initially for a period of 2 years he being the president of the HPC. Since Clause 5.5 never indicates that the president of the HPC should continue as its Chairman of the SHDC, contention of the writ Petitioner No. 2 that appointment of the Respondent No. 4 is illegal cannot sustain. The provisions of Clause 5.7 is clear and specific in respect of president of the HPC. 18. As the Clause 5.7 has not provided any provision for appointment of the president of the HPC as Chairman of the SHDC beyond the period of initial 2 years, appointment of Respondent No. 4 as Chairman of the SHDC is beyond the scope of challenge. Claim of Petitioner No. 2 that he having been elected as president of the HPC in the election held on 16.6.2009 he should adorn the post of Chairman of SHDC appears to be sallow one and there being no depth, the same cannot be accepted. This Court thus, finds no force in the argument advanced by Mr. C. Lalramzauva, the learned senior Counsel for the Petitioners. On the other hand, arguments advanced by Mrs. Helen Dawngliani, learned G.A. appearing for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 has a strong foundation. Petitioner No. 2 cannot claim his appointment as Chairman of the SHDC on account his election held on 16.6.2009 as the president of the HPC. According to Mrs. Helen Dawngliani, provisions of Clause 5.7 do not provide any ground in favour of the Petitioner No. 2 to be appointed as Chairman of the SHDC. Per term of Clause 5.7 Government is free to appoint any person as Chairman of SHDC after the expiry of the initial interim period of 2 years. 19. In view of the facts and the provisions of the Memorandum of Settlement and the submissions advanced by the counsel of respective party, I am of the considered view that this writ petition is devoid of merit. I find no plausible ground to interfere with the impugned notification dated 18th August, 2009 and to issue a direction to the Respondents to appoint him as Chairman of the SHDC. 20. Writ petition accordingly stands dismissed. Petition dismissed.