Ujjal Bhuyan, J.—The four petitioners are elected Village Council Members of a village called Council Veng Lal Autonomous District Council (LADC). By way of the present petition under Article 226, of the Constitution of India, petitioners seek quashing of notification dated 10.10.2012 and 10.01.2013, suspending the Village Council of the said village for a period of three months each, upto 11.04.2013. 2. Case of the petitioners is that following elections held, they were elected as Village Council Members of the above named village in February, 2011. The term of the Village Council is for three years i.e. upto February, 2014. Respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 are also elected Village Council Members of the said village. 3. Initially petitioner No. 2 was the President of the Village Council but following a no-confidence motion, respondent No. 5 became the President. Subsequently, as the functioning of respondent of respondent No. 5 was found not satisfactory, petitioners moved respondent No. 2 seeking leave to move a no- confidence motion against respondent No. 5. As leave was not being granted, petitioners approached this Court in WP(C) No. 16/2012. During the pendency of the writ petition, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 allowed the petitioners to move the no-confidence motion against respondent No. 5. Accordingly, no-confidence motion was moved on 10.04.2012 following which respondent No. 5 was removed and petitioner No. 1 became the President of the Village Council No. 3 became the Vice President of the Village Council. In view of above development. WP(C) No. 16/2012 became infructuous and was closed as such. 4. It appears that within one month thereafter, the local unit of the Congress Party lodged a complaint before respondent Nos. 1 and 2 making allegations against the petitioners and seeking dissolution of the Village Council, A one member Inquiry Commission with one Shri H.C. Vanlalruatpuia as the Commissioner was appointed to look into the allegations and to submit report. He submitted report on 29.06.2012. As per report, since the Village Council had changed President in the past, the present President could be changed also. He, therefore, suggested that LADC may go along with the views of the Congress unit of the said village. 5. He submitted report on 29.06.2012. As per report, since the Village Council had changed President in the past, the present President could be changed also. He, therefore, suggested that LADC may go along with the views of the Congress unit of the said village. 5. LADC issued show-cause notice dated 23.7.2012 to the President of the Village Council stating that the Commission appointed u/s 10(1) of the Lal Autonomous District (Village Council) Act, 2010, had submitted report, which was enclosed with the show-cause notice. The Village Council was asked to submit explanation on or before 26.07.2012. Petitioner No. 1 submitted his reply denying the allegations. It appears that LADC was satisfied with the reply and no further steps were taken. 6. Thereafter, the local Congress unit again lodged a complaint against the petitioners. Respondent No. 2 constituted an Inquiry Commission on 22.08.2012 comprising of two members to enquire into the affairs of the Village Council and to submit report within one month. Inquiry Commission submitted report on 13.09.2012. 7. LADC issued show-cause notice again on 28.09.2012 to the Village Council seeking an explanation within 03.10.2012 on the report of the Inquiry Commission, a copy of which was enclosed with show-cause notice. Petitioner No. 1 submitted detailed reply with supporting documents. 8. By notification dated 10.10.2012, LADC suspended the Village Council for three months. Respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 were appointed as the President, Vice President and Village Council Member of the village. 9. Petitioners had challenged the notification dated 10.10.2012 before this Court in WP(C) No. 94/2012. During the pendency of the said writ petition, the suspension period of three months had expired and LADC issued fresh notification dated 10.01.2013 suspending the Village Council for a further period of three months w.e.f. 11.01.2013 upto 11.04.2013. Respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 were allowed to continue in their respective positions. In view of the aforesaid development, WP(C) No. 94/2012 was withdrawn by the petitioners on 29.01.2013 with liberty to file a fresh petition. Thereafter, the present petition has been filed. 10. Contention of the petitioners is that no reasons have been recorded in the orders of suspension. Though show-cause notice was issued to the petitioners enclosing therewith copy of the enquiry report, specific grounds or specific allegations were not pointed out because of which petitioners could not effectively meet the allegations. Thereafter, the present petition has been filed. 10. Contention of the petitioners is that no reasons have been recorded in the orders of suspension. Though show-cause notice was issued to the petitioners enclosing therewith copy of the enquiry report, specific grounds or specific allegations were not pointed out because of which petitioners could not effectively meet the allegations. Enquiry report was against the functioning of the Village Council and not confined to the activities of the petitioners. Therefore, suspending the petitioners and allowing respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 to manage the village administration is not only arbitrary and unreasonable but is also actuated by extraneous considerations. 11. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have filed counter affidavit Stand taken is that complaint was received regarding functioning of the Village Council. Inquiry Commission comprising of 2 members was appointed to conduct enquiry against the Village Council. On the basis of the report submitted, show-cause notice was issued to the Village Council. The reply of petitioners was not found satisfactory. Thereafter, provision of Section 11(1) of the Lal Autonomous District (Village Council) Act, 2010 (Act) was invoked placing the Village Council under suspension for a period of three months vide notification dated 10.10.2012. As the village administration had to be maintained, respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 were temporarily allowed to function as President, Vice President and Member. Power is available to the LADC u/s 11 of the Act to place the Village Council under suspension. Therefore, action of the answering respondent is legal and within jurisdiction. 12. Heard Mr. A.R. Malhotra, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. C. Lalramzauva, learned senior counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. None appears for respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 despite being served. 13. Mr. A.R. Malhotra, learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the Village Council has been placed under suspension for wholly extraneous consideration. A perusal of the enquiry report would show that there were no such adverse findings to warrant suspension of the Village Council. He submits that no reasonable opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioners before resorting to the impugned action. Impugned orders of suspension being devoid of reason, are wholly arbitrarily and unreasonable. In support of his submission, learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of ORYX Fisheries Private Limited Vs. He submits that no reasonable opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioners before resorting to the impugned action. Impugned orders of suspension being devoid of reason, are wholly arbitrarily and unreasonable. In support of his submission, learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of ORYX Fisheries Private Limited Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, to contend that reasons have to be recorded in the impugned order which discloses the mind of the authority, failing which impugned order would stand vitiated. 14. Mr. C. Lalramzauva, learned senior counsel on the other hand submits that Section 11(1) of the Act gives unbridled power to the LADC to suspend any village council. Therefore, the impugned action placing the Village Council under suspension is in accordance with law. He also raises the objection that petitioners have not challenged the enquiry report, which is the foundation of the impugned orders. Without challenging the enquiry report, it is not open to the petitioners to challenge the suspension orders, which are consequential in nature. In support of his submission, learned senior counsel has placed reliance on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Government of Maharashtra and Others Vs. Deokar's Distillery, to contend that without challenging the enquiry report, petitioners are not entitled to challenge the suspension orders which were merely consequently in nature. He further submits that the LADC had taken a considerate view of the matter and, therefore, did not resort to the drastic action of dissolution of the Village Council, which course of action was also open to the LADC u/s 10 of the Act. In such circumstances, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 15. In his brief reply, Mr. A.R. Malhotra, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned orders are tainted with mala fide as the answering respondent were guided solely by political and other consideration. He, therefore, prays for decisive intervention by the Court in the matter. 16. Submissions made have been considered. 17. Before proceeding further, a brief dilation on the relevant provisions of the Act is considered necessary. 18. The Act has been framed under paragraph 11 of the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution of India to provide for establishment of Village Council, their powers and for matters relating to village administration. 16. Submissions made have been considered. 17. Before proceeding further, a brief dilation on the relevant provisions of the Act is considered necessary. 18. The Act has been framed under paragraph 11 of the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution of India to provide for establishment of Village Council, their powers and for matters relating to village administration. u/s 2(c), Executive Body means the Executive Body of the Village Council consisting of President, Vice President and Secretary. Executive Committee, as per Section 2(d), means the Executive Committee of the LADC. Section 3 provides for constitution of Village Council in each village within the jurisdiction of the LADC having not less than 50 houses. u/s 7, each Village Council should have an Executive Body consisting of President, Vice President and Secretary. President and Vice President are elected by the members of the Village Council from amongst themselves by majority of votes. The Secretary, who is not a member of the Village Council is appointed by the Executive Committee on recommendation of the President of the Village Council. 19. Section 10 of the Act provides for dissolution of Village Council. As per Sub-section (1), the Executive Committee by public notification may appoint a Commission consisting of the District Council to enquire into the affairs of the Village Council on the following aspects:-- 1. the Village Council is too inefficient, 2. is unable to carry out the village administration, 3. is acting in a manner prejudicial to the interest of the State or the District Council, or 4. is known to have been indulging in corrupt practices in the matter of village administration. 20. The commission shall, after proper enquiry, submit its report of findings along with its recommendation to the Executive Committee within the period specified. As per sub-section (2), the Executive Committee is required to place such report with its proposal before the District Council in session. Following decision taken by District Council in session, consequential order is issued. 21. Under sub-section (4), if a Village Council is dissolved, the Executive Committee may appoint not more than three persons from amongst prominent villagers to be the President and members to Act as the Village Council in charge of the village administration during the period of dissolution. 22. Section 11 deals with suspension of Village Council. 21. Under sub-section (4), if a Village Council is dissolved, the Executive Committee may appoint not more than three persons from amongst prominent villagers to be the President and members to Act as the Village Council in charge of the village administration during the period of dissolution. 22. Section 11 deals with suspension of Village Council. As per sub-section (1), the Executive Committee may, on the recommendation of the Commission appointed Under sub-section (1), of Section 10, order suspension of any Village Council for a period of three months at a time which may be extended for another three months. During the period of suspension, the Executive Committee shall assume to itself all the powers and functions of the Village Council and appoint not more than three persons from amongst prominent villagers as provided by sub-section (4) of Section 10. Thus, u/s 11, discretion is vested on the Executive Committee whether to Act or not to Act on the recommendation of the Commission. 23. Though Section 11 does not indicate the grounds for suspension of Village Council, the Court is of the view that the provision of Section 11 will have to be read together with the provision of Section 10 of the Act for a meaningful interpretation of the said provision. The power conferred on the Executive Committee by Section 11 of the Act being discretionary, the same has to be exercised objectively and with circumspection. 24. The submission of Mr. C. Lalramzauva, learned senior counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 that the Executive Committee has unbridled power to place a Village Council under suspension cannot be accepted inasmuch as under our constitutional scheme, no authority can exercise power in an untrammelled manner. Such power, even if discretionary, has to be exercised in a reasonable, rational and fair manner, which is consistent with the objective sought to be achieved, which is, maintaining the autonomy of the village administration under the District Council so as to have decentralization of power upto the grass root level within the Sixth Schedule framework. Such power, even if discretionary, has to be exercised in a reasonable, rational and fair manner, which is consistent with the objective sought to be achieved, which is, maintaining the autonomy of the village administration under the District Council so as to have decentralization of power upto the grass root level within the Sixth Schedule framework. The Village Council being an elected body, its functioning should not ordinarily be interfered with except of very serious reasons which can be traced or relatable to the grounds mentioned in Section 10, namely, it is inefficient, it is unable to carry on the village administration, it is acting in a manner prejudicial to the interest of the State or the District Council or it is known to have been indulging in corrupt practices. 25. A bare perusal of the two impugned notifications dated 10.10.2012 and 10.01.2013 would show that nothing has been indicated therein as to why the power of suspension has been invoked except stating that the Commission had come to the conclusion that the Village Council is unsuitable to look after the community 26. A conjoint reading of Sections 10(4) and 11(1) of the Act would further indicate that the Executive Committee may appoint not more than three persons from against the prominent villagers to look after the village administration in the interregnums. Under sub-section (4) of Section 10, the said power is to be exercised after dissolution of the Village Council. In other words, such prominent villager could not have been a member of the Village Council which was dissolved under sub-section (1) of Section 10. Sub-section (1) of Section 11 provides for appointment of not more than three persons to look after the village administration when the Executive Body is under suspension, in a manner provided by sub-section (4) of Section 10. If that be the position, appointment of respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5, being members of the village Council, as President, Vice President and Member of the Village Council is clearly illegal, being in violation of the provisions of Section 11(1) read with Section 10(4) of the Act. 27. Coming to the enquiry report, on the basis of which the Executive Committee has resorted to suspension of the Village Council, it is seen that the Commission has given conflicting report. 27. Coming to the enquiry report, on the basis of which the Executive Committee has resorted to suspension of the Village Council, it is seen that the Commission has given conflicting report. At page 34 of the writ petition, the previous Commission ad suggested that the Village Council President could be changed because on earlier occasions, the Village Council President were changed and, therefore, the Executive Committee may go along with the views of the local Congress unit. Again, at page 83, the Inquiry Commission felt that comparing with the fund received, the Village Council had done their work well. Further, at page 85, the Inquiry Commission had stated that in so far the allegation of embezzlement of Rs. 7,860/- was concerned, it appeared to be untrue. However, at page 86, the Inquiry Commission observed that monitoring of the work was below par. 28. Based on such report, the Court is of the view that it was not proper on the part of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to have resorted to suspension of an elected Village Council. 29. Submission of learned senior counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 that without challenging the enquiry report, petitioners could not have challenged the consequential orders of suspension does not appeal to the Court as because petitioners are aggrieved by the ultimate order of suspension. Reference to Deokar's Distillary (supra) is misplaced in as much as in that case, the challenge was made to the consequential demand notice without challenging the main circular on the basis of which the demand notice was issued. Facts in the present case are clearly distinguishable. As already noticed above, the Executive Committee had the discretion to act on the recommendation of the Commission appointed u/s 10(1). Petitioners became aggrieved only when respondent Nos. 1 and 2 decided to exercise the discretion u/s 11(1) of the Act. 30. Thus, on a totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, Court is of the view that interference by the Executive Committee by placing the Village Council under suspension does not appear to be justified. In view of the discussions made above, impugned notification dated 10.10.2012 and 10.01.2013 cannot be sustained and are hereby set aside and quashed. Writ petition stands allowed. No cost.