JUDGMENT Subhasis Talapatra, J. 1. This writ appeal questions the legality of the judgment and order dated 13.09.2011 as passed in W.P.(C) No. 126(K) of 2011 by the learned Single Judge whereby the writ petition filed by the respondents No. 1 to 6 (hereinafter referred to as the writ petitioners) was allowed and consequentially the minutes dated 04.05.2011 (Annexure-H to the writ petition) as well as the letter dated 20.05.2011 (Annexure-I to the writ petition) were set aside. By the impugned judgment and order the respondent authorities particularly the respondent No. 3 in the writ petition was directed to approve the list of the Village Council Members (VCMs in short) as submitted by the writ petitioners and forwarded by the respondent-Deputy Commissioner within a period of 15 days from the day of receiving the certified copy of the order in accordance with law. Thereafter the elections/selections of the Chairman and/or the Secretary of the Village Council shall be made from amongst the VCMs approved by the Government as per provisions of Section 7 and 8 of the Nagaland Village Council and Area Council Act, 1978 (NVC Act in short). 2. While admitting this petition this Court was successfully persuaded to pass an ad-interim order dated 16.12.2011 on suspending the operation of the impugned judgment and order in W.A. 24(K) of 2011. Thereafter, the official respondents (the respondent No. 7, 8, 9 & 10 in the writ appeal) prayed collectively for modification and/or alteration/vacation of the said ad-interim order dated 16.12.2011 coupled with a prayer for allowing the official respondents to temporarily administer the functioning of the Chedema Village Council or to permit those respondents to proceed with selection/election of the Chairman and the Secretary of the Chedema Village Council by aid of the Government- approved list of Village Council Members for the Chedema Village. 3. This Court by the order dated 13.06.2012 considered the said prayer and disposed of the miscellaneous application being Civil Misc. 3. This Court by the order dated 13.06.2012 considered the said prayer and disposed of the miscellaneous application being Civil Misc. case No. 12(K) of 2012 in W.A. 24(K) of 2011 on modifying the ad-interim order to the extent as excerpted hereunder: Considering the matter in its entirety, to protect the interest of the parties concerned, during the pendency of the appeal, we are of the considered opinion that the interim order dated 16.12.2011 is required to be modified to the extent of permitting the applicants to administer the affairs of Chedema Village in the interest of the villagers. Therefore, the prayer of the official respondents to proceed with the selection/election of the Chairman and the Secretary of the Chedema Village Council from the Government approved list was impliedly rejected. As such, in no way the impugned judgment and order came into effect to alter the status-que as existed at the time of passing the judgment. 4. The essential facts those are at the centre stage of the controversy are required to be briefly revisited for purpose of appreciation of the challenge that has been projected by the writ appellants. When the term of the said village council for 2006-2010 had expired, the Government of Nagaland directed in general for formation of the new village councils by way of selecting/electing new VCMs for the term of 2011-2016. Pursuant to the said direction of the Government, a meeting was purportedly convened in the Chedema Village on 01.02.2011 for election/selection of the VCMs for the term, 2011-2016. The said meeting was attended by the Gaon Burahs (GBs in short), Khel representatives, Clan representatives and senior citizens of the village, Chedema. In the said meeting a unanimous resolution was adopted that no women representative would have voting right in the Village Council. In the said meeting Mr. Sabeituo Usou and Mr. Mhasibeituo Thevuo were selected as the Chairman and the Secretary respectively by the VCMs who were elected in that meeting. Accordingly, the Head GB of the village, Chedema forwarded a list of the Chairman, the Secretary and six other members by the letter dated 01.02.2011 to the Deputy Commissioner, Kohima, the respondent No. 10 in this writ appeal for obtaining the required approval from the Government. While the approval was pending, some VCMs along with the writ appellant Nos. 1 & 2 herein (the respondent Nos. While the approval was pending, some VCMs along with the writ appellant Nos. 1 & 2 herein (the respondent Nos. 5 & 6 in the writ petition) made a complaint that the entire exercise of selection/election of the Chairman and the Secretary had been conducted behind their back. They demanded inclusion of the women representative in the Village Council with equal rights. Since the Government deferred the approval, the writ petitioners approached the respondent No. 10 i.e. the Deputy Commissioner, Kohima why such approval was being delayed. Then the writ petitioners came to know that a complaint against the entire process of selecting the VCMs, the Chairman and the Secretary of the Village Council was being enquired into. As response, the writ petitioners made a representation on 28.02.2011 apprising the respondent No. 10 (the respondent No. 4 in the writ petition) that under the existing provision of law, the women representative and/or the society members have no right of voting. Thereafter by a letter dated 07.03.2011 the said Deputy Commissioner asked the Head GB of the Chedema Village Council to conduct election of the Chairman of Village Council at the earliest. In the said letter, it was clearly directed that except VCMs and the GBs, who are ex-officio members, no woman representative from the societies/NGOs should be allowed to vote for the election/selection of the Chairman of the Village Council. By a subsequent letter dated 27.04.2011, the Deputy Commissioner directed the Head GB of the Chedema Village to ensure that VCMs and the GBs remain present on 04.05.2011 at 11 a.m. in the chamber of the SDO(S). As notified, a meeting was held on 04.05.2011 in the SDO's chamber and the same was observed by the EAC (Sadar), the SDO (Sadar), the Political Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner, Kohima and the Head GB. The EAS read out the list furnished by the Head GB of Chedema Village which included a woman representative nominated by the Chedema Village Woman Society as the VCM in the Chedema Village. 5. A question whether the women representative had ever voted in the past elections was deliberated substantially. Most of the members present answered in the affirmative and it was contended that a women representative cast vote to break the tie in 1992 and thereafter the practice remained to be followed. 5. A question whether the women representative had ever voted in the past elections was deliberated substantially. Most of the members present answered in the affirmative and it was contended that a women representative cast vote to break the tie in 1992 and thereafter the practice remained to be followed. It was decided in that meeting that since the women representative had been voting as the VCM from the year 1992 the issue cannot be truncated for the present election. However, it was observed that after the present election if the Village Council felt that the practice of the women representative voting as the VCM should be curtailed or discontinued, it might adopt such resolution to settle the issue. Thereafter, election/selection of the Chairman and the Secretary proceeded. 7(Seven) VCMs cast their vote while 6(six) of them abstained from voting. The appellants No. 1 and 2 were elected as the Chairman and the Secretary respectively of the Chedema Village Council. The respondent-Deputy Commissioner vide his letter dated 20.05.2011 informed the Chairman of the Chedema Village Council that the newly elected Chairman, the Secretary and the VCMs may start functioning until further orders from the Govt. The aforesaid list of the newly elected chairman, the Secretary and the VCMs as prepared from the said meeting held on 04.05.2011 was forwarded to the Government for approval. In the wake, the respondents No. 1 to 6 in the writ appeal filed the writ petition and approached this Court for quashing and setting aside the impugned minutes dated 04.05.2011 recording election of the writ appellants No. 1 and 2 as the Chairman and the Secretary of the Chedema Village Council respectively by permitting the writ appellant No. 3 to cast vote in contrast to the provisions of the NVC Act, impugned by Article 371-A of the Constitution of India. The letter dated 07.03.2011 and the Notice dated 27.04.2011 (Annexure-H to the writ petition) have also been put under challenge. They urged this Court to quash the impugned letter dated 20.05.2011 permitting the appellants No. 1 and 2 to function as the Chairman and the Secretary of the Village Council. 6. The letter dated 07.03.2011 and the Notice dated 27.04.2011 (Annexure-H to the writ petition) have also been put under challenge. They urged this Court to quash the impugned letter dated 20.05.2011 permitting the appellants No. 1 and 2 to function as the Chairman and the Secretary of the Village Council. 6. It appears that the sole question that had fallen for consideration before the learned Single Judge is whether there had been any breach of the provisions of Section 4, 7 & 8 of the NVC Act qua Article 371-A of the Constitution of India, which for providing safeguards to religious or social practices of the Nagas and their customary law and practices, extended a constitution immunity from the common laws of the republic. It was contended by the writ petitioners that the NVC Act does not provide any reservation for women guaranteeing their representation in the Village Councils and as such no woman representative from the NGOs or the Societies can be accommodated by way of reservation or representation in the Village Council. Therefore, they argued that the writ appellant No. 3 cannot be allowed either to vote or to be elected and the status so extended to her does not can any legitimacy inasmuch as her election as the VCM is in contrast to the provision of Section 4 of the NVC Act qua Article 371(A) of the Constitution of India The election/selection of the writ appellants No. 1 and 2 as the Chairman and the Secretary of the Village Council was thus contended to be illegal and unauthorized as they were so elected by the vote of the writ appellant No. 3 along with 6(six) others VCMs. The writ petitioners contended very stoutly that the respondent No. 7 to 10 in the writ appeal should have approved the list of the VCMs who were duly elected in the meeting held on 01.02.2001 selecting/electing the writ petitioners No. 1 and 3 as the Chairman and the Secretary of the said Village Council in as much as no woman representative was allowed to cast their vote in the said selection/election. What can be had from the records is that there is no prohibition or there is no customary law and practice in the State of Nagaland by which representation from the women is prohibited. What can be had from the records is that there is no prohibition or there is no customary law and practice in the State of Nagaland by which representation from the women is prohibited. As noticed, in the year 1992, the representative from the women was allowed to cast vote. Whether that can form the customary practice of the Naga Communities within the meaning of the Clauses (i) religious or social practices of the Nagas and (ii) Naga Customary law and procedure as protected under special provision in regard to the State of Nagaland by Article 371-A of the Constitution, the response has to be negative as the reference as made in Article 371-A of the constitution is related to the custom and the practices prevalent prior to the enactment of the Constitution (Thirteenth Amendment) Act, 1962 which had been effective from 01.12.1963. Else, the provisions of Article 371-A of the Constitution would turn disarrayed. 7. Moreover, from the minutes dated 04.05.2011 it appears that the said issue was seriously deliberated upon and it has been reconciled. Before the learned Single Judge, the official respondents also contended that there is no bar or prohibition under Article 371(A) of the Constitution of India and the NVC Act, 1978 as regards representation from the women folk. The official respondents with much emphasis contended that the women representation in the village council has been provided in conformity with the Naga customary laws, usages and practices, not an anathema thereto. Apart from its being conformed to the democratic principles and the universal right to the equal status. 8. The learned Single Judge on appreciation of the challenge directed the official respondents to approve the list of the VCMs as forwarded or submitted by the writ petitioners and held further that the procedure as adopted and the action as taken by the official respondents in selecting the writ appellants No. 1 & 2 (the respondents No. 5 & 6) were clearly beyond the scope and ambit of Sections 4, 7 & 8 of the NVC Act, in as much as no amendment has been carried out in the said Act allowing selection/election of the woman representative from the societies or NGOs to the Village Council. Unless the act provides such accommodation, no such accommodation can be extended. If so provided that would imperil the entire legal process, making it susceptible to the judicial intervention. Unless the act provides such accommodation, no such accommodation can be extended. If so provided that would imperil the entire legal process, making it susceptible to the judicial intervention. The learned Single Judge held that; the Court is to interpret the present law and examine the legality and validity of the impugned action of the respondents and it cannot import something which is not provided in the statute. If the respondents sincerely desire to give due representation of woman in the Village Council it could be done only through befitting amendment to the existing 1978 Act. It is the function of the State Legislature but the initiative must be taken by the respondent-authorities. For that there should be a political will of the legislators and the Government. Till such time comes, the Court cannot allow the respondents to give right of representation to woman vis--vis right to vote in the Village Council except in accordance with the existing law and procedure. I find that the petitioners have been able to make out a case for interfering with the impugned action of the respondent-authorities. On such basis, the impugned minutes dated 04.05.2011 (Annexure-H) as well as the impugned letter/order dated 20.05.2011 (Annexure-I) stand set aside and quashed with a direction to the respondent-authorities particularly to the respondent No. 3 in the writ petition (the Deputy Commissioner) to approve the list of VCM as submitted by the petitioners and forwarded by the respondent-Deputy Commissioner forthwith within a period of 15(fifteen) days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order in accordance with law. Thereafter the election/selection of the Chairman and Secretary of the Village Council shall be made from amongst the VCMs approved by the Government as per provision under Sections 7 and 8 of the NVC Act, 1978. (emphasis added) 9. Prior to further exploration, it would be proper to highlight that in the meeting that was held on 04.05.2011, as it appears from the minutes at Annexure-H to the writ petition, all the 13(thirteen) VCMs including the writ appellant No. 3 participated for election and constitution of the Village Council. In the said meeting the writ petitioners were also present, even though they abstained from voting. The writ appellants No. 1 and 2 were respectively elected as the Chairman and the Secretary of the Chedema Village Council on culmination of the said process. In the said meeting the writ petitioners were also present, even though they abstained from voting. The writ appellants No. 1 and 2 were respectively elected as the Chairman and the Secretary of the Chedema Village Council on culmination of the said process. It is also to be underlined that the respondent No. 10 in the writ appeal (the Deputy Commissioner, Kohima) issued the notice through the head G.B., Chedema Village to ensure presence of the VCMs and the G.Bs on 04.05.2011 at the S.D.O's Chamber with caution that the members not attending the meeting would be treated as the absentees. Accordingly, all the members were present for purpose of selection/election of the Chairman and the Secretary of the Chedema Village Council and it appears from the said minutes at Annexure-H. the issue of the representation from the womenfolk was deliberated upon and resolved as under: 3. EAC(S) read out the list of names furnished by the Head G.B. of Chedema Village which included a women representative nominated by the Chedema Village Women Society as Village Council Member (VCM) in the Chedema Village Council. Thereafter, the members present were asked whether the women representative had voted in the previous elections, on which most of them answering in the affirmative. In this regard, Shri. Virhituo, GB. stated that in the year 1992 there was a tie during the election of the Chairman and to break that tie the members called a women representative to vote. Thereafter, the trend followed. 4. It was emphasized that time was given to non voting members to organize a meeting for passing a resolution regarding women representation for which no decision was brought up. 5. It was also explained to the members present that since the women members have been voting as Village Council (VCM) representative since 1992, the issue cannot be truncated for the present election. However, after the present election if the Village Council feels that the system of women vote in the Village Council election should be discontinued, it is pertinent that the issue can only be resolved by passing a village resolution. 10. From the Annexure-8, it would be also evident that the writ petitioners abstained from voting. However, they did not register any note of dissent against the resolution as was adopted in the said meeting. 10. From the Annexure-8, it would be also evident that the writ petitioners abstained from voting. However, they did not register any note of dissent against the resolution as was adopted in the said meeting. Section 4 of Nagaland Village Council and Area Council Act, 1978 (the NVC Act) provides that: 4. A Village Council shall consist of members, chosen by villagers in accordance with the prevailing customary practices and usages, the same being approved by the State Government, provided that hereditary village Chiefs GBs and Angs shall be Ex-Officio Members of such Council and shall have voting right. Sections 7 & 8 of the 1978 NVC Act provide further that: 7(1) The Village Council will choose a member as Chairman of the Council. (2) During the absence of the Chairman from any sitting of the Village Council a member of the Council nominated by the Chairman shall act as Chairman. 8. Secretary: The Village Council may select and appoint a Secretary who may or may not be a member of the Council. If the Secretary is not a member of the Council, he shall have no voting rights. So it is clear that except the members as referred in Section 4 read with Section 7 & 8 of the NVC Act and the Ex-Officio members which include the hereditary Village Chiefs, the GBs and the Angs, no other person shall have the right to get elected as the VCMs or the voting right to select the Chairman and the Secretary of the Village Council. 11. It is also evident that in the meeting held on 01.02.2011 the list of the VCMs as prepared by the writ petitioners has been held by the learned Single Judge as pending for approval of the Government. Further, the finding of the learned Single Judge is that at the stage of pending approval by the Government, 'the other members' attended the meeting held on 04.05.2011 in the office chamber of the S.D.O. for selection of the Chairman and the Secretary is wholly unsustainable as it stands contrary to the records. 12. It would be evident that all the writ petitioners were also present in the said meeting held on 04.05.2011. But they abstained from voting. The learned single Judge did not consider the representation available at Annexure-D whereby the writ petitioners No. 1, 2, 3 & 4 stated as under: 1. 12. It would be evident that all the writ petitioners were also present in the said meeting held on 04.05.2011. But they abstained from voting. The learned single Judge did not consider the representation available at Annexure-D whereby the writ petitioners No. 1, 2, 3 & 4 stated as under: 1. That we the undersigned elected Village Council Members (VCMs) along with others had been elected by our Clan and Khel respectively as per our prevailing Customary practices and usage for the tenure 2011-2016. 2. That as per the provision of the Nagaland Village Council Act, 1978, we are to elect our own Chairman and Secretary from amongst the elected Village Council Members. 3. That however, in the previous election/selection of Chairman and Secretary of the Village Council, the woman representative and Society members who are not elected as Village Council Members (VCM) had been allowed to cast their votes in the election by vested individual and parties which has brought communal disharmony in the village and moreover affected the smooth functioning of the Village Council. In view of the above stated facts and circumstances and as per the provision of the Nagaland Village Council Act, 1978, since the election/selection of Chairman and Secretary has to be done from amongst the elected Village Council Members, we request your esteemed Office to pass necessary orders/instructions restraining the woman representative and Society members who are to be elected Village Council members to exercise their voting rights in the said election. 13. On the face of the such representation (Annexure-D as stated) which was filed on 28.02.2011, it was communicated that the woman representative nominated by the societies/NGOs should not be allowed to vote for election of the Village Council Chairman, vide the letter dated 07.03.2011 (Annexure-E to the writ petition). Thereafter, the notice dated 27.04.2011 (Annexure-F) was issued and definitely the said notice had the superseding effect on the decision contained in the letter dated 07.03.2011. 14. Obviously there is no dispute regarding the selection of the Village Council Members (VCMs) from the Clan/Khels. The bone of contention exploits the issue of the representation from the womenfolk and that issue was deliberated upon in the meeting that was held on 04.05.2011. The majority of the members in presence of the representatives of the respondent No. 10 decided to have the woman representative. The bone of contention exploits the issue of the representation from the womenfolk and that issue was deliberated upon in the meeting that was held on 04.05.2011. The majority of the members in presence of the representatives of the respondent No. 10 decided to have the woman representative. The learned Single Judge found that the said proceeding as held on 04.05.2011 was in contrast to the provision of Section 4 read with Article 371(A) of the Constitution of India. The 371(A) of the Constitution of India provides that: 371 A. Special provision with respect to the State of Nagaland:-- (1) Notwithstanding anything in thin Constitution,-- (a) no Act of parliament in respect of-- (i) religious or social practices of the Nagas, (ii) Naga customary law and procedure, (iii) Administration of civil and criminal justice involving decisions according to Naga customary law, (iv) Ownership and transfer of land and its resources, shall apply to the State of Nagaland unless the Legislative Assembly of Nagaland by a resolution so decides; 15. From a bare reading of Section 4 of the NVC Act it emerged that nor it has expressly provided what are the prevailing customary law, practices and usages neither the parties at loggerheads have produced any record before this Court for appreciation. However, it appeared in that proceeding that prior to the year 1992, no representation from the womenfolk was being allowed to vote in the election, and in the year 1992 one women representative was allowed to cast her vote to break the tie. There had been no conscious decision by the Village Council to ensure the representation from the womenfolk in perpetuity. Apart that, ancillary to this question, another question that would popup is that whether the Village Council can be permitted to adopt such resolution ensuring the representation from the womenfolk in the Village council in as much as that representation does not apparently form part of the customary laws, usages and practices. Since Article 371(A) of the Constitution of India has provided that unless the Legislative Assembly of Nagaland by a resolutions so decides the Naga customary laws and procedure was prevail over. 16. In view of this, the finding of the learned Single Judge cannot be held to be entirely erroneous as the canons of the interpretation even taking a liberal approach is restricted to whatever the law provides and to interpret the law harmoniously. 16. In view of this, the finding of the learned Single Judge cannot be held to be entirely erroneous as the canons of the interpretation even taking a liberal approach is restricted to whatever the law provides and to interpret the law harmoniously. Even when the Court admits of the perspective approach then also it would stand to purpose of the legislations not to frustrate the legislative intent. In IRC Vs. McGuckian as reported in 1997 (1) WLR 91 Lord Steyn said: During last 30 years there has been a shift away from the literalist approach to purposive methods of construction. When there is 'no obvious meaning to a statutory provision the modem emphasis is on a contextual, approach designed to identify the purpose of a statute and to give effect to it. But another factual aspect of the matter was not considered by the learned Single Judge that the writ petitioners having participated in the election process without raising any objection save and except their abstention as stated, whether would be allowed to challenge the said process, unless of course they could demonstrate that the entire process was vitiated ab initio for illegality. Their only grievance as evinced of the records is that in the election process the writ appellant No. 3 was allowed to cast, her vote and the writ appellant Nos. 1 & 2 have been elected respectively as the Chairman and the Secretary of the Chedema Village Council. In no context, abstention creates division of votes, not even by implications. Therefore, the issue also can not be relegated to determination of the majority. 17. In this regard, Mr. M.H. Chowdhury, learned counsel appearing for the writ appellants submitted that the Government of Nagaland in the Land Revenue Department by a Memorandum dated 20.03.1998 has circulated a policy which provides thus: LR/1-1/94: The development of women forms an integral part of the overall development programmes of the State of Nagaland. In this regard, the State Government have been examining to what extend it will be necessary, practicable and prudent to intervene to secure gender justice and empower women so as to make women coequal participants and partners in the socio economic development of the State. The Government have thus far made it mandatory that women should be represented in the Village Council/Village Development Board and also that women should have a separate share in the VPF programmes. The Government have thus far made it mandatory that women should be represented in the Village Council/Village Development Board and also that women should have a separate share in the VPF programmes. The ownership and transfer of land in the traditional holdings are governed by the respective customary laws of the Naga tribes, and Government do not consider it prudent or expedient at this stage to intervene in the matter. However, in such matters as specified in the following, Government deem fit that women should have equal opportunities to avail benefits and facilities. 1. Allotment and settlement of surplus Government land to private individuals. 2. Providing largesse and other benefits and facilities connected with various developmental programmes etc. This memorandum reflects the general policy approach of the Government of Nagaland but it cannot be accepted either as the supplant of the customary laws, practices and usages or as the supplement. As such, it can not bolster the writ appellant's contention. 18. It is on the other hand amazing to note that the official respondents made a turnaround from their pleaded case and stated that in such situation the resolution of the meeting dated 01.02.2011 as communicated (Annexure-A to the writ petition) has to be approved by the Government for welfare of the said village. But it is apparent from the records that the said list was discarded having not approved by the Government. In other words, the Government had turned down the approval by implication when the Deputy Commissioner, the respondent No. 10 in the writ appeal, had issued the notice dated 27.04.2011 (Annexure-F to the writ petition), as stated, convening the meeting dated 04.05.2011 which was attended by the writ petitioners also. The writ petitioners so far the consideration of the minutes as available in the Annexure-H are concerned are estopped by conduct from raising objection or seeking approval of the said purported list of the selected/elected VCMs. 19. Moreover, it would be apparent from the affidavit filed by the respondents No. 7, 8, 9 & 10 against the writ petition that: 5. 19. Moreover, it would be apparent from the affidavit filed by the respondents No. 7, 8, 9 & 10 against the writ petition that: 5. That with regard to the statements made in paragraph 3 of the petition it is to state that the selection/election of Chedema Village Council Chairman and Secretary for the tenure 2011-2016 was held on 4.05.2011 as per the relevant provision of the Village Council Act, 1978 (Act in short) and with due regard to the customary practices of Chedema Village. In the selection/election for Village Council Chairman and Secretary all the 13 VCMs/GBs attended the meeting. The respondents No. 5 and 6 have been selected/elected with the majority support of 7 VCMs/GBs out of the total strength of 13. 20. In para-14, 17 & 18 of the said affidavit, the official respondents have supported the contention of the writ appellants taking a position against the writ petitioners. This Court would lay some emphasis on the averments as projected by the official respondents in Para-18 of their affidavit which runs as under: That with regard to the statements made in Paragraph-21 of the petition it is to specifically states that the meeting convened on 01.02.2011 by Mr. Virhituo as Head GB cannot be accepted since he is no longer head GB of Chedema village. In view of this statement, it is clear that the outcome of the meeting convened on 01.02.2011 has not been approved by the official respondents when such approval is the mandatory requirement of Section 4 of the NVC Act. As such the direction as issued by the learned Single Judge that the list of the VCMs as submitted by the writ petitioners has to be approved within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order in accordance with law is not based on a sound rationale. It is equally applicable in case of the further direction that the election or selection of the Chairman and the Secretary of the Village Council shall be made from amongst the VCMs, approved by the Government as per provisions of 7 & 8 of the NVC Act. As corollary to these observations, the said directions are interfered with and set aside. 21. As corollary to these observations, the said directions are interfered with and set aside. 21. In the result, the official respondents are directed to continue manage the affairs of the said Village in terms of the order by this Court dated 13.06.2012 passed in CMC 12(K) of 2012 in WA 24(K) of 2012. 22. In view of the Memorandum dated 20.03.1998 under No. LR/1-1/94, the respondent No. 7 in particular has to decide whether the representation from the womenfolk would be ensured by the legislative change vis--vis of Section 4 of the NVC Act. If the respondent No. 7 is of the opinion that such representation should be ensured in terms of the policy as reflected in the said memorandum dated 20.03.1998 they should bring about the legislative change in accordance with due process having regard to Article 371(A) of the Constitution. The respondent No. 7 in the writ appeal would be at liberty to bring the ordinance having regard to the contemplated, as would be, legislative change pending the passage of the appropriate piece of legislation in the legislative Assembly of Nagaland, but either of the exercises inclusive of constitution of the Chedema Village Council and election/selection of the Chairman and the Secretary of the said Village Council has to be completed within a period of 6(six) months from today without fail and till then, the interim arrangement as indicated shall continue. With this observation and directions, this writ appeal stands partly allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Appeal Partly Allowed