JUDGMENT Hrishikesh Roy, J. 1. Heard Mr. S.P. Sarma, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners. Mr. V.G.K. Kynta, appears for the respondent No. 2 as the Standing Counsel for the Khasi Hills Autonomous District Council (KHADC). Mr. P. Nongbri, represents the Syiem of Hima Mylliem (respondent No. 3). Mr. K.C. Gautam appears for the Myntri (respondent No. 4) of the Lingdoh Nongbsap Clan. The Chairman and the Clan Elders (respondents 5 to 11) are represented by Mr. L. Lyngdoh. The petitioners belong to the Lyngdoh Nongbsap Clan and, inter alia, seek a direction for holding a referendum on the continuance of the respondent No. 4 who was elected on 2.12.1989 as Myntri of his Clan and in this capacity, the respondent No. 4 represents the Clan, in the Dorbar of Syiem of Hima Mylliem. 2. On 26.7.2006 the petitioners gave a representation (Annexure-IVA), before the Syiem of Hima Mylliem (respondent No. 3), alleging improper disposal of Clan properties by the Myntri and requested the Syiem of Hima Mylliem to remove the respondent No. 4 from the post of Myntri. A second representation was given on 4.8.2006 (Annexure-VA) where loss of Clan Members' confidence on the respondent No. 4 was alleged. In support of this complaint, the petitioners referred to a meeting held on 25.7.2006 at the Nongbsap Government L.P. School. 3. The Syiem of Hima Mylliem acting on the complaint of the petitioners, issued a show cause notice and in his reply dated 21.9.2006 (Annexure-VIA), the respondent No. 4 denied the correctness of the allegations and stated that it was the Clan Elders who had decided on disposal of the Clan property and the Myntri had no individual role in the matter. 4. The Syiem of Hima Mylliem gave a hearing to the parties on 5.10.2006 and in his judgment dated 19.10.2006 (Annexure-XA), it was observed that the lease of Clan resource was duly authorized on 12.12.1992 in the General Meeting of the Clan (Darbar Kur), and it being a collective decision of the Clan Elders, the respondent No. 4 as a Myntri had no individual role in that decision. As the Clan Elders (respondents 5 to 11) took full responsibility for leasing out the Clan property, the Syiem of Hima Mylliem held that the allegations made by the petitioners are without any factual foundation and their complaint was accordingly dismissed through the judgment dated 19.10.2006. 5. As the Clan Elders (respondents 5 to 11) took full responsibility for leasing out the Clan property, the Syiem of Hima Mylliem held that the allegations made by the petitioners are without any factual foundation and their complaint was accordingly dismissed through the judgment dated 19.10.2006. 5. The aggrieved complainants preferred Appeal under Section 9(2) of the United Khasi-Jaintia Hills Autonomous District (Appointment and Succession of Chiefs and Headman) Act 1959 (hereinafter referred to as" the 1959 Act') to challenge the Syiem's order. The Appellate Authority i.e. the Executive Committee of the KHADC, after hearing the submissions of the parties and scrutiny of the relevant materials, concluded that the affairs of the Lyngdoh Nongbsap Clan was managed and controlled by fee authorized Clan Elders. The Appellate Court also concluded mat the complaint made against the respondent No. 4 is not supported by any material evidence and accordingly the Appeal of the petitioners was dismissed and the Syiem's order dated 19.10.2006 was upheld by the judgment dated 15.4.2008. 6. Mr. S.P. Sarma, the learned Counsel submits that the Myntri doesn't enjoy confidence of the majority of the Clan Members and accordingly a referendum should be ordered to verify whether the respondent No. 4 continues to enjoy the confidence of his Clan. The Counsel submits that under the 1959 Act, a referendum is contemplated under Section 9 against the Headman which expression is inclusive of Myntris, under Section 2(k), and he accordingly argues that the provisions of Sub-Clause (h) of Section 9(1) will apply to respondent No. 4, who has lost the confidence of his Clan Members. 7. Representing the Clan Elders of the Lyngdoh Nongbsap Clan (respondents 5 to 11), Mr. L. Lyngdoh, the learned Counsel submits that the petitioners are not amongst the recognized Clan Elders and as ordinary members of the Clan, they are not authorized to convene meetings for discussing a referendum against a Headman (Myntri) of the Clan. 7.1 The learned Counsel submits that the so called meetings organized by the petitioners on 6.6.2006 and 25.7.2006 are absolutely unauthorized and no valid decision could have been taken in any of those meetings, which were not convened under the authority of the Clan Elders. But Mr. Sharma disputes this and submits that the petitioners 1 & 2 are recognized Clan Elders. But Mr. Sharma disputes this and submits that the petitioners 1 & 2 are recognized Clan Elders. 7.2 The respondents 5 to 11 further contends that the Clan Elders have taken full responsibility for dealing with the Clan property and since a collective decision to transfer some trees and timbers were taken in the general Dorbar held on 12.12.1992, they argue that the allegation made against the Myntri (respondent No. 4) is absolutely unfounded. 7.3 Mr. Lyngdoh submits that only a legally convened general Dorbar can decide on the loss of support for a Clan Myntri and the steps taken by the petitioners as general Clan Members, are absolutely unauthorized and inconsistent with the customary practice and the provisions of the 1959 Act. 7.4 On the communication made by the KHADC Authorities to the petitioner No. 1 on 15.1.2008, whereby the process of preparation of the Voters List was stopped, the respondents 5 to 11 contend that the petitioners never challenged the KHADC's letter addressed to the petitioner No. 1 and accordingly he can't now seek a referendum against the respondent No. 4 as the abandonment of the earlier process got stalled with the letter dated 15.1.2008. 8. Representing the targeted Myntri (respondent No. 4), Mr. K.C. Gautam, the learned Counsel submits that all the allegations made against his client were found to be unfounded by the Syiem of Hima Mylliem as well as by the Executive Committee of the KHADC and this concurrent conclusion was reached by the 2 adjudicatory bodies only because, the Clan Elders (respondents 5 to 11) stood by the decision taken in the general Dorbar on 12.12.1992. Accordingly the Counsel submits that the petitioners had made wild and baseless allegations against the respondent No. 4 only to oust him from power and since the Myntri continues to enjoy the confidence of the Clan Members, there is no question of holding a referendum against him, under Sub-Clause (h) of Section 9(1) of the 1959 Act. 9.1 For the KHADC Authorities, Mr. V.G.K. Kynta points out that the 1959 Act provides a procedure for removal of a Headman on various grounds including loss of confidence of the Clan Members and adverse orders passed under Section 9(1) of the 1959 Act are appelable to the Executive Committee of the KHADC under Sub-section (2) of the Section 9. 9.1 For the KHADC Authorities, Mr. V.G.K. Kynta points out that the 1959 Act provides a procedure for removal of a Headman on various grounds including loss of confidence of the Clan Members and adverse orders passed under Section 9(1) of the 1959 Act are appelable to the Executive Committee of the KHADC under Sub-section (2) of the Section 9. The learned Counsel also points out that the Executive Committee has independent power for taking disciplinary action against a Headman under Sub-section (3) of Section 9, but arbitrary action can't be taken by the Committee since a Headman can't be removed, without affording a hearing to the concerned Headman. 9.2 Mr. Kynta refers to the exoneration of the respondent No. 4 by the Syiem of Hima Mylliem on 19.10.2006 and the concurrent order recorded on 15.4.2008 by the Executive Committee of the KHADC to project that the respondent No. 4 Myntri was cleared of all the charges and it was held by both the Forums that the petitioners' complaint are false and was without any factual foundation. Accordingly, the Counsel submits that this Court should accord finality to the concurrent decisions since the conclusion was reached on cogent evidence. 9.3 The decision(s) of the Apex Court in State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Chitra Venkata Rao reported in AIR 1975 SC 2151 and in Swarn Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in AIR 1976 SC 232 are cited by Mr. Kynta to contend that the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court should not be lightly exercised to disrupt the concurrent finding(s) of 19.10.2006 and 15.4.2008 of the Syiem of Hima Mylliem and the Appellate Authority i.e. the Executive Committee of the KHADC as those are reasoned decisions based on solid support of all the Clan Elders (respondents 5 to 11). 9.4 Questioning the petitioners' right to challenge the rejection of their complaint made against the respondent No. 4, Mr. Kynta submits that the decision of the Executive Committee is final under the 1959 Act and the said decision can't be questioned in a writ proceeding unless it is demonstrated that the finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal is based on no evidence or is reached through an erroneous legal procedure. 10. Kynta submits that the decision of the Executive Committee is final under the 1959 Act and the said decision can't be questioned in a writ proceeding unless it is demonstrated that the finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal is based on no evidence or is reached through an erroneous legal procedure. 10. Under the prevailing system of the Clan, a Myntri is elected by the Clan Members to represent them in the general Dorbar of the Syiemship of the Elaka and once elected, a Myntri usually continues for life. This shows the exalted position that a Myntri or Headman like him, occupy in the Clan hierarchy. While removal of a Myntri for loss of confidence or other valid ground is contemplated by the 1959 Act, ordinary Clan Members can't on their own, convene any meeting to have a vote of confidence against the Myntri of the Clan. The petitioners as ordinary Clan Members, at best could have requested the Clan Elders to convene meeting to have a referendum on the Myntri, but in the present case, a general Dorbar of the Clan Members was never convened by any of the authorized Clan Elders. In these circumstances, the petitioners' claim to have the respondent No. 4 removed through their self convened meetings is not found tenable and the same is rejected. 11. It must also be noted that the Syiem of Hima Mylliem as well as the Executive Committee of the KHADC have afforded hearing to both the parties, considered the evidence and after due deliberation found that the allegation made against the Myntri were totally unfounded. These factual findings of the 2 authorities were reached through a legal procedure and are based on cogent material. The decision(s) dated 19.10.2006 and 15.4.2008 are based on the stand taken by the Clan Elders (respondents 5 to 11), who projected that the Clan properties were dealt through the 12.12.1992 collective decision of the general Dorbar of the Clan and the respondent No. 4 as a Myntri had no individual role in those decisions. It is therefore apparent that the decisions are supported by cogent evidence. The conclusions are reached through a fair process where hearing was afforded to the parties. It is therefore apparent that the decisions are supported by cogent evidence. The conclusions are reached through a fair process where hearing was afforded to the parties. Consequently, having regard to the law laid down by the Apex Court in Chitra Venkata (supra) and Swam Singh (supra), I am of the view that disturbing such concurrent findings through exercise of certiorari power of a Writ Court, would be wholly unjustified in the present case. In view of the above discussion, I find no merit in this case and the same is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.