Judgment T. Nandakumar Singh, J. 1. This intra-court appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 04.07.2012 dismissing the writ petition i.e. WP(C) No. 402(SH)2010 filed against the cryptic order dated 12.07.2010 passed by the Executive Member, Executive Committee, Khasi Hills Autonomous District Council (for short 'KHADC'), Shillong in Misc. Case No. 3/2010. The only reason in the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 04.07.2012 for dismissing the writ petition is that the High Court while exercising powers and jurisdiction under Article 226 is not sitting as Court of appeal against the decision of the Executive Committee of the District Council i.e. the order dated 12.07.2010. For easy reference, the findings of the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment and order dated 04.07.2012 are quoted hereunder:- 04.07.2012 ***** ***** ***** ***** This Court while exercising powers and jurisdiction under Article 226 is not sitting as Court of appeal against the decision of the Executive Committee of the District Council. The limited scope of this Court is to find as to whether there has been any aberration in the application of law or any irregularity apparent on the face of the record, which would warrant interference by this Court. This Court would not normally enter into the disputed question of facts. In the present case, it appears that the Executive Committee of the District Council, after considering various facts and on the basis of the available records has come to a certain conclusion and since the conclusions of the Executive Committee of the District Council are based on certain evidences and records available before them, there is no occasion for this Court to substitute their opinion with the opinion of this Court. In view of the limited scope and in view of the absence of any patent irregularity or illegality in the proceeding before the Executive Committee of the District Council, this Court is of the view that no case has been made out for interference by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed. However, with no costs. 2. Heard Mrs. NG Shylla, learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner, Ms. PS Nongbri, learned standing counsel for the KHADC and Mr. GS Massar, learned Sr. Adv. assisted by Mr. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed. However, with no costs. 2. Heard Mrs. NG Shylla, learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner, Ms. PS Nongbri, learned standing counsel for the KHADC and Mr. GS Massar, learned Sr. Adv. assisted by Mr. JM Thangkhiew, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No. 4. 3. Factual matrix:-Mawlum Nginiong village attained its status as a full-fledged village in the year 2000. That village comes under the Myriaw Syiemship, Nongkasen, West Khasi Hills District (proforma respondent No. 5). In the same year i.e. 2000, the respondent No. 4 was appointed as the first Sordar of Mawlum Nginiong village. The appointment of the respondent No. 4 as Sordar of Mawlum Nginiong village was under the Sanad issued by the then Syiem of Myriaw Syiemship on 17.03.2000 with the approval of the Executive Committee, KHADC on 07.02.2000. It is the case of the respondent No. 4 that his appointment as Sordar of Mawlum Nginiong village was approved by the Executive Committee, KHADC on 07.02.2000. The respondent No. 4 continued to function as Sordar of Mawlum Nginiong village since Mawlum Nginiong village attained the status of a full-fledged village in the year 2000; and in the year 2009-2010, it was discovered that the official documents of the villagers of Mawlum Nginiong village reflected that they are the villagers/inhabitants of Mawlum Ramkdait village instead of Mawlum Nginiong village. This led to much confusion amongst the villagers as there was no village by the name of Mawlum Ramkdait village. After various inquiries, it was discovered that the respondent No. 4 without the knowledge and consent of the majority of the villagers had changed the name of Mawlum Nginiong village to that of Mawlum Ramkdait village on the strength of a Resolution dated 26.01.2006 passed in the village Dorbar of Mawlum Ramkdait village on 26.01.2006. The proceedings of the village Durbar held on 26.01.2006 was purported to have been signed by only 33 (thirty three) villagers. The translated copy (copy translated by the parties) of the village Durbar of Mawlum Ramkdait village held on 26.01.2006 (Annexure-2 to the memo of appeal) reads as follows:- The village Dorbar of Mawlum which sat on 26.01.2006 at the LP School. Mawlum has resolved as follows:- 1. School fund collected by Shri. Fromly Wahlang of Rs. 250.00 as follows: 2. The translated copy (copy translated by the parties) of the village Durbar of Mawlum Ramkdait village held on 26.01.2006 (Annexure-2 to the memo of appeal) reads as follows:- The village Dorbar of Mawlum which sat on 26.01.2006 at the LP School. Mawlum has resolved as follows:- 1. School fund collected by Shri. Fromly Wahlang of Rs. 250.00 as follows: 2. It is resolved to hold a Dorbar for report on 23.03.06 and to elect the members. 3. Mr. Eden Nonglang and Mr. Melking Lyngkhoi are elected as auditors to audit the accounts of 2004-2005. 4. The Dorbar discussed on electricity connection and resolved that only those houses who deposited the money will be given electricity connection and those who have not deposited the money will not be given connection neither extend the electric/connection as warned by the lineman of the office of the MESEB. 5. The Dorbar also discussed in detail and resolved with one accord to change/alter the village name to Mawlum Ramkdait no longer Mawlum Nginiong and the Sordar will do the needful. 6. Documents and other files under the custody of the treasurer Shri. Kinowell Nongbri has been handed over to the Sordar Mr. Renly Lyngkhoi along with Rs. 780/- with one file and one Register Book. 7. It is also resolved that the names of the electors in the Electoral Roll and those who have attained eighteen years of age to submit their names and in this connection Mr. Klirshon Nongbri has been elected to do the needful. 8. That the matter relating to water connection is also discussed and the dorbar as a whole resolved to meet in the office and elected sordar Klirshon and Ebidar to submit the report before the dorbar. The Dorbar is over. Dated: Mawlum Ramkdait The:-26.01.2006 Sordar Shnong Mawlum Ramkdait, Myriaw Syiemship. Klirshon Nongbri, Secretary, Shnong Mawlum Ramkdait. 4. The villagers of Mawlum Nginiong village held an urgent village Dorbar on 09.04.2010 and appointed the present appellant/writ petitioner as Sordar of Mawlum Nginiong village as the respondent No. 4 claimed himself to be the Sordar of Mawlum Ramkdait village. The villagers of Mawlum Nginiong village also filed a complaint dated 09.04.2010 to the Syiem of Myriaw Syiemship against the respondent No. 4, who claimed to be the Sordar of Mawlum Ramkdait village. The villagers of Mawlum Nginiong village also filed a complaint dated 09.04.2010 to the Syiem of Myriaw Syiemship against the respondent No. 4, who claimed to be the Sordar of Mawlum Ramkdait village. It is stated that the said complaint dated 09.04.2010 was also signed by 33 (thirty three) heads of the households of Mawlum Nginiong village. The Syiem of Myriaw Syiemship i.e. proforma respondent No. 5 on receipt of the complaint dated 09.04.2010, issued the notice dated 19.04.2010 to the appellant/writ petitioner as well as to the respondent No. 4 (Shri. Renly Lyngkhoi) for hearing the matter on 24.04.2010. On 24.04.2010, the appellant/writ petitioner and the respondent No. 4 and others appeared before the Syiem of Myriaw Syiemship i.e. the proforma respondent No. 5, but the respondent No. 4 refused to submit his reply to the said notice dated 19.04.2010 asking him to file his show cause or reply statement to the said complaint dated 09.04.2010. On 24.04.2010, the proforma respondent No. 5 i.e. the Syiem of Myriaw Syiemship, had conducted the village Dorbar of Mawlum Nginiong village, and the respondent No. 4 also participated in the village Dorbar. After appearance before the village Dorbar held on 24.04.2010, the respondent No. 4 simply asked for the certified copy of the complaint dated 09.04.2010 so that he could submit his reply to the said complaint dated 09.04.2010 on the future date. Accordingly, the village Dorbar conducted by the proforma respondent No. 5 fixed the next date as on 27.04.2010. 5. However, the respondent No. 4 on 27.04.2010, refused to submit his reply, as such, the proforma respondent No. 5 and His Dorbar were compelled to appoint the appellant/writ petitioner as Acting Sordar of Mawlum Nginiong village vide order dated 27.04.2010. The appointment of the appellant/writ petitioner as Acting Sordar of Mawlum Nginiong village under the said order dated 27.04.2010, was to avoid any problems and difficulties of the residents of Mawlum Nginiong village and also in the village Dorbar held on 27.04.2010 had discussed one man action to alter the name of the village from Mawlum Nginiong to Mawlum Ramkdait village. The proforma respondent No. 5 also issued the order dated 27.04.2010 for appointing the appellant/writ petitioner as Acting Sordar and the said order dated 27.04.2010 (Annexure-4 to the memo of appeal) reads as follows:- Office of The Syiem: Hima Myriaw Myriaw Syiemship To, Shri. Thwingly Lyngkhoi and 32 others, Mawlum Nginiong. Dated: Nongkasen, The: 27.04.2010 Sir, As per your petition dated Mawlum Nginiong dated Mawlum Nginiong, the 9th April, 2010, the Syiem and his Dorbar have carefully perused the matter relating to one man act (Sic Action) to alter the name of the village from Mawlum Nginiong to Mawlum Ramkdait without the approval of the Mawlum Nginiong village. To avoid any problem and difficulties of the residents of the Mawlum Nginiong village, the Syiem and his dorbar have appointed. Shri. Thwing Lyngkhoi as acting Sordar, to manage all the village works/duty under the Mawlum Nginiong village till further order from this office of the Syiem of Myriaw. By Order Sd/- 27.04.2010 B.K. Syiem, Syiem Hima Myriaw 6. On 10.05.2010, Mawlum Nginiong village convened a Dorbar and two officials of the proforma respondent No. 5 namely, Shri. H.F. Marngar (Myntri/Lyngdoh) and Shri. K.P. Dkhar (Joint Secretary of Rambrai Syiemship) were also present. The village Dorbar unanimously elected the appellant/writ petitioner as the new Sordar of Mawlum Nginiong village. The proceedings of the village Dorbar held on 10.05.2010 was also approved by the proforma respondent No. 5 and issued a Sanad dated 13.05.2010 for appointing the appellant/writ petitioner as a full-fledged Sordar of Mawlum Nginiong village. The said Sanad dated 13.05.2010 for appointing the appellant/writ petitioner as Sordar of Mawlum Nginiong village reads as follows:- Office of The Syiem:: Hima Myriaw Syiemship To, Shri. Thwingland Lyngkhoi, Sordar of the Mawlum Nginiong. Due to the resignation/election of new Sordar Mawlum Nginiong village, the executive dorbar Hima Myriaw authorized by KHADC (appointment) and succession of Syiem, Deputy Syiem and elector of Myriaw Syiemship, Act 2007) today you are hereby appointed as sordar of Mawlum Nginiong village, Myriaw Syiemship on the following terms and conditions. 1) The village executive Dorbar including the elders who will be appointed by the village Dorbar will assist the sordar. The sordar will immediately hold a dorbar to be sent to the executive dorbar for its approval. 1) The village executive Dorbar including the elders who will be appointed by the village Dorbar will assist the sordar. The sordar will immediately hold a dorbar to be sent to the executive dorbar for its approval. 2) To manage and administer the village according to the terms and conditions of the Hima, custom and traditions of the village for peace, welfare and prosperity of the village. 3) To obey the direction of the Syiem, Officers of Hima authorized by the executive dorbar in relation to the village and Hima. 4) To propose and create budget for the annual expenditure and place before the village dorbar and the Hima for information. 5) To maintain proper records of the expenses of the village and report the same to the Village Dorbar for approval and send the copy to the Hima for information. 6) As long as you are the sordar you shall not go against the order/resolution of the executive Dorbar, Dorbar Hima and order of the Syiem. 7) Sordar is also a member of the Dorbar Hima. 8) The Sordar and village Dorbar shall prohibit its inhabitants to do the followings:- a) To destroy the fish or aquatic animals by poison, blasting, netting and the like, according to the convenience of the village. 9) The sordar shall organize cleaning drive every year for cleaning the village and Footpath he shall organize cleaning drive every year within the boundaries. 10) During the sowing seasons the sordar shall provide protection for or against the domestic animals. 11) To inform the executive dorbar Hima before permitting any outsiders to reside in the village. 12) The sordar and members of the executive committee will receive a one day wage in a year for ploughing fields. 13) During any incidence affecting the live and welfare of the society, natural calamity etc the sordar should immediately inform the authority or the Syiem. 14) To administer the village according to the resolution of the village executive committee and directions of the executive Dorbar of the Hima. 15) You may be terminated from the office if you violate the above conditions and other rules amended from time to time. This shall take affect from today till further order. 14) To administer the village according to the resolution of the village executive committee and directions of the executive Dorbar of the Hima. 15) You may be terminated from the office if you violate the above conditions and other rules amended from time to time. This shall take affect from today till further order. Sd/- Syiem Hima Myriaw I, Shri, Thwingland Lyngkhoi today the 13th Day of May, 2010 do hereby agreed to the terms and conditions and accept the office as sordar of the village as entrusted. Sd/- 7. The respondent No. 4 being aggrieved by the said order dated 27.04.2010 passed by the proforma respondent No. 5 for appointing the appellant/writ petitioner as temporary Sordar of Mawlum Nginiong village basing on the resolution of the village Dorbar passed in its meeting held on 27.04.2010 and Sanad dated 13.05.2010, instead of preferring an appeal against the same, filed a complaint before the Executive Committee, KHADC; and the Executive Committee, KHADC registered the said complaint as Misc. Case No. 3/2010. In that complaint, the respondent No. 4 categorically stated that he was appointed as Sordar of Mawlum Nginiong village under a Sanad dated 17.03.2000 issued by the then Syiem of Myriaw Syiemship and the resolution of the village Durbar for appointing the respondent No. 4 as Sordar was also approved by the Executive Committee, KHADC on 07.02.2000. For the sake of repetition, it is reiterated that the appointment of the respondent No. 4 as Sordar of Mawlum Nginiong village was under the Sanad issued by the Syiem of Myriaw Syiemship i.e. proforma respondent No. 5 and also approved by the Executive Committee, KHADC. Further, in the complaint, it is stated that on 26.01.2006, there was a village Dorbar of Ramkdait village and resolved many matters relating to the village and also to alter the name of village from Mawlum Nginiong to Mawlum Ramkdait village. The said complaint i.e. registered as Misc. Case No. 3/2010 (Annexure-7 to the memo of appeal) reads as follows:- To, The Executive Committee, Khasi Hills Autonomous District Council, Shillong. (Through the E.M. Incharge, Elaka etc) Sub: Complaint against the appointment of Acting Sordar of Mawlum Nginiong village without removing and giving the opportunity to show cause to the sordar who was recognised by the village, Hima and the Executive Autonomous District Council. Misc. (Through the E.M. Incharge, Elaka etc) Sub: Complaint against the appointment of Acting Sordar of Mawlum Nginiong village without removing and giving the opportunity to show cause to the sordar who was recognised by the village, Hima and the Executive Autonomous District Council. Misc. Case No. 3 of 2010 Shri. Renly Lyngkhoi, Sordar Mawlum Myriaw Syiemship West Khasi Hills District ... Petitioner -Versus- 1. Syiem of Myriaw and his Dorbar Nongkasen, Myriaw Syiemship 2. Shri. Thwing Lyngkhoi, Mawlum-Nginiong Myriaw Syiemship, East Khasi Hills District. ... Opposite Party Respectfully Sheweth: 1. That the petitioner is a full-fledged Sordar of Mawlum-Nginiong village since 17/3/2000 as per Sanad of the then Syiem and approved by the Executive Committee, Khasi Hills Autonomous District Council on 7/2/2000. 2. That on 26.01.2006 a dorbar of Mawlum-Nginiong was held at LP School, Mawlum to discuss and resolved many matters relating to the village and the dorbar and one of the matters discussed and resolved on that day is the alteration of the name of the village from Mawlum-Nginiong to Mawlum-Ramkdait. (Copy of the resolution of the village Dorbar dt. 26.01.06 is attached herewith as Annexure-I) 3. That in matters relating with the government through the block Department Office, Mawthadraishan Block, the petitioner as Sordar has informed the resolution of the Dorbar to the office of the Syiem, Myriaw Syiemship as directed by the officers. 4. That suddenly on 19.04.2010, the petitioner received notice directing him to meet the Syiem in his office, Myriaw Syiemship at Nongkasen village to discuss on the matter relating to the alteration of the name of the village from Mawlum-Nginiong to Mawlum-Ramkdait. (Copy of the order of the Syiem dt. 19.04.2010 Is attached herewith as Annexure-2) 5. That the petitioner on receipt of the notice dt. 19.04.2010 on enquiry from the office of the Syiem and that he was summoned on the complaint of Shri. Thwing Lyngkhoi and 32 others. On 24.04.10 the petitioner applied for certified copy of the complaint of Shri. Thwing Lyngkhoi and others and also filed an adjournment petition to adjourn the matter and fixed on 27.04.2010 to enable him to discuss the matter again in the Dorbar. (Copy of the application for certified copy dt. 24.04.2010 is attached herewith as Annexure-3) 6. That the certified copy dt. (Copy of the application for certified copy dt. 24.04.2010 is attached herewith as Annexure-3) 6. That the certified copy dt. 13.05.2010 of the complaint of Shri. Thwing Lyngkhoi and others revealed that the urgent appointment of sordar of Mawlum-Nginiong village is due to the fact that the petitioner is now the sordar of Mawlum-Ramkdait village. 7. That, the petitioner after 27.04.2010 came to know that there was an order of the Syiem of Myriaw in appointing a new sordar for Mawlum-Nginiong village and on receipt of the certified copy, it was found to be true and that the Syiem had appointed Shri. Thwing Lyngkhoi as Acting Sordar, the reason stated therein is that the alteration of the name of the village from Mawlum-Nginiong to Mawlum-Ramkdait is the act of the petitioner alone. The (Rai) order is based on the letter dt. 09.04.2010 without consideration of the letter of the petitioner. This is against the custom and practice. (Copies of the complaint of Shri. Thwing Lyngkhoi dt. 09.04.2010 and the Impugned order of the Syiem Myriaw dt. 27.04.2010 is attached herewith as Annexure-4 and Annexure-5). 8. That the petitioner was shocked on seeing that the office of Syiem, Hima Myriaw issued Sanad to the opposite party No. 2 as the new Sordar of Mawlum-Nginiong. The petitioner begs to state here that no Dorbar has been held in Mawlum-Nginiong or Ramkdait to elect the new Sordar. This is an act of connivance between the Opp. Party No. 1 (Syiem Myriaw & his Dorbar) and Opp. Party No. 2 (Shri. Thwing Lyngkhoi) and others. The E.C. of the Khasi Hills Autonomous District Council may inquire into these facts. (Photo copy of the Sanad issued by Syiem, Myriaw Syiemship to Opp. Party No. 2 is attached herewith as Annexure-6). 9. That the Resolution dt. 26.01.2006 is the resolution of the Dorbar Mawlum village which was held with the knowledge of all its inhabitants. 10. That Mawlum-Nginiong of Mawlum-Ramkdait village is one and the same under one Headman and it cannot be understood as to how the Syiem Myriaw (and his Dorbar or he himself) could appoint a Sordar or Acting Sordar without suspending the present Sordar of the village. 11. That the undersigned is aggrieved by the order of the Syiem Myriaw dt. 27.04.2010 on the following grounds:- a) That the order dt. 11. That the undersigned is aggrieved by the order of the Syiem Myriaw dt. 27.04.2010 on the following grounds:- a) That the order dt. 27.04.2010 is bad in law, and in facts and are baseless and arbitrary. b) That the order dt. 27.04.2010 is against the custom, traditions of governance. c) That the order dt. 27.04.2010 is one sided without application of mind and against the administration of justice in resolving the disputes between the parties violating the rule of natural justice. d) That the order dt. 27.04.2010 is an act of aggression, without proper authority as the Syiem cannot separate the village without adjudicating the resolution of village Dorbar. e) That the Syiem and the Dorbar cannot decide any matter except on the complaint of some complainants. Further, when the statement of the headman or the village Dorbar is not considered or heard. f) That the unauthorized appointment by the Opp. Party No. 1 (Syiem and the Dorbar Hima Myriaw) is illegal and against the custom without hearing or verification as to whether the Dorbar has appointed a new Headman. The petitioner reiterate that the act of the Syiem and the Dorbar (Opp. Party No. 1) is in a connivance with the Opp. Party No. 2 (Shri. Thwing Lyngkhoi) as that of a dictator. g) That the appointment of Shri. Thwing Lyngkhoi as Sordar of village Mawlum-Nginiong will cause disorder and confusion in the administration of the village and the Hima as the undersigned has not been suspended. h) That the act of Syiem Myriaw without informing the headman or the village Dorbar till date is an act of dictatorship. In view of the facts stated above it is prayed that your honour may be pleased to call for records of the case from the office of the Syiem Myriaw and stay the operation of the order dt. 27.4.10 and Sanad dt. 13.5.2010 and to pass any order(s) as your honour deem fit and proper for the welfare of the village. And for which act of kindness humble petitioner shall every pray. Dated:-Mawlum The:-/May, 2010 Petitioner Sordar 8. The appellant/writ petitioner and the proforma respondent No. 5 filed joint show cause statement in the Misc. Case No. 3/2010. 27.4.10 and Sanad dt. 13.5.2010 and to pass any order(s) as your honour deem fit and proper for the welfare of the village. And for which act of kindness humble petitioner shall every pray. Dated:-Mawlum The:-/May, 2010 Petitioner Sordar 8. The appellant/writ petitioner and the proforma respondent No. 5 filed joint show cause statement in the Misc. Case No. 3/2010. In that show cause statement, the proforma respondent No. 5 i.e. the Syiem of Myriaw Syiemship clearly stated that the resolution of the so called Dorbar held on 26.01.2006 was never brought before the Syiem of Myriaw Syiemship for approval inasmuch as, it is an admitted case of the parties that the proforma respondent No. 5 is the concerned Syiem who could issue the Sanad for appointment of the respondent No. 4 as Sordar of the village of Mawlum Nginiong and also admittedly Mawlum Nginiong village comes under the Syiem of Myriaw Syiemship and it is also required to be approved by the Executive Committee, KHADC in the manner the Executive Committee, KHADC approved the appointment of the respondent No. 4 as Sordar of Mawlum Nginiong village on 07.02.2000. It is also stated in the show cause statement that the respondent No. 4 appeared before the Dorbar conducted by the proforma respondent No. 5 on 24.04.2010 but the respondent No. 4 was reluctant to discuss the matter as to how the name of village had been changed from Mawlum Nginiong to Mawlum Ramkdait village in the so called Dorbar held on 26.01.2006. The appellant/writ petitioner and the proforma respondent No. 5 had clearly mentioned the fact as to how the appellant/writ petitioner had been appointed as Sordar of Mawlum Nginiong village in the village Dorbar held on 10.05.2010. The learned Executive Member, Executive Committee, KHADC by a cryptic order dated 12.07.2010 allowed the Misc. Case No. 3/2010 and directed that the village Mawlum Nginiong shall be known as Mawlum Ramkdait village and the respondent No. 4 shall continue to remain as Sordar. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 12.07.2010 passed in Misc. Case No. 3/2010, the appellant/writ petitioner filed WP(C) No. 402(SH)2010, which had been dismissed by the impugned judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 04.07.2012. Hence, the appellant/writ petitioner filed the present Writ Appeal No. 24/2012 against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 04.07.2012. 9. Case No. 3/2010, the appellant/writ petitioner filed WP(C) No. 402(SH)2010, which had been dismissed by the impugned judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 04.07.2012. Hence, the appellant/writ petitioner filed the present Writ Appeal No. 24/2012 against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 04.07.2012. 9. The main issues in the present case which are hotly disputed by the appellant/writ petitioner and the respondent No. 4 are that (i) whether the proceedings of the village Dorbar/or resolution passed in the village Dorbar is required to be brought to the notice of the concerned Syiem under whose Syiemship, the said village is located and; (ii) whether the appointment of the Sordar of the village pursuant to the resolution passed in the village Dorbar by the Syiem of the concerned Syiemship under his order/Sanad is required to be approved by the Executive Committee of the concerned District Council. In the present case, it is the case of the respondent No. 4 that he is the Sordar of Mawlum Nginiong village under the Sanad issued by the Syiem of Myriaw Syiemship dated 17.03.2000 and also the Executive Committee, KHADC approved the resolution of the village Dorbar for appointing the respondent No. 4 as Sordar of Mawlum Nginiong village on 07.02.2000. Not only in the writ petition but also before the Executive Member, Executive Committee, KHADC in Misc. Case No. 3/2010 the respondent No. 4 alleged that the proceedings of the Dorbar of Mawlum Nginiong village held on 26.01.2006 in which the Dorbar passed the resolution for changing the name of the village from Mawlum Nginiong village to Mawlum Ramkdait village is not required to be brought to the notice of the Syiem of the concerned Syiemship i.e. proforma respondent No. 5 and also not required to be approved by the Executive Committee, KHADC. 10. The respondent No. 4 made a complete summersault from his earlier stand that proceedings/or resolution of the village Dorbar for appointment of Sordar of the village is to be approved by the Syiem of the concerned Syiemship who is the competent authority to issue the Sanad for appointment of Sordar of the village and also to be approved by the Executive Committee, KHADC and stated in Misc. Case No. 3/2010 and in his counter affidavit filed in WP(C) No. 402(SH)2010 that the proceedings/resolution of the so called village Dorbar of Mawlum Nginiong village held on 26.01.2006 for changing the name of the village from Mawlum Nginiong to Mawlum Ramkdait village is not required to be brought to the notice of the proforma respondent No. 5, who is the Syiem competent to issue Sanad for appointment of Sordar and also not required to be approved by the Executive Committee, KHADC. It is fairly well settled law that one cannot blow hot and cold in the same breath in the same subject matter for his advantage inasmuch as, law does not permit a person to both approbate and reprobate. This principle is based on the doctrine of election which postulates that no party can accept and reject the same instrument and that "a person cannot say at one time that a transaction is valid and thereby obtain some advantage, to which he could only be entitled on the footing that it is valid, and then turn around and say it is void for the purpose of securing some other advantage." In the present case, the respondent No. 4 after taking advantage of his appointment as Sordar of Mawlum Nginiong village as per the Sanad issued by the then Syiem of Myriaw Syiemship and approved by the Executive Committee, KHADC cannot state that the approval of the proforma respondent No. 5 and the Executive Committee, KHADC are not required for the resolution of the village Dorbar held on 26.01.2006. Regarding this settled principle of law, we may refer to the two decisions of the Apex Court in (i) R.N. Gosain v. Yashpal Dhir: (1992) 4 SCC 683 and (ii) Joint Action Committee of Air Line Pilots' Association of India (ALPAI) v. Director General of Civil Aviation & Ors: (2011) 5 SCC 435 . Para 10 of the SCC in R.N. Gosain's case (Supra) reads as follows:- 10. Law does not permit a person to both approbate and reprobate. Para 10 of the SCC in R.N. Gosain's case (Supra) reads as follows:- 10. Law does not permit a person to both approbate and reprobate. This principle is based on the doctrine of election which postulates that no party can accept and reject the same instrument and that "a person cannot say at one time that a transaction is valid and thereby obtain some advantage, to which he could only be entitled on the footing that it is valid, and then turn round and say it is void for the purpose of securing some other advantage". [See: Verschures Creameries Ltd. V. Hull and Netherlands Steamship Co. Ltd.:(1921) 2 KB 608, 612 (CA), Scrutton, L.J.] According to Halsbury's Laws of England, 4th Edn., Vol. 16, "after taking an advantage under an order (for example for the payment of costs) a party may be precluded from saying that it is invalid and asking to set it aside. (para 1508). Para 12 of the SCC in Joint Action Committee of Air Line Pilots' Association of India (ALPAI) case (Supra) reads as follows:- 12. The doctrine of election is based on the rule of estoppel-the principle that one cannot approbate and reprobate inheres in it. The doctrine of estoppel by election is one of the species of estoppels in pais (or equitable estoppel), which is a rule in equity. By that law, a person may be precluded by his actions or conduct or silence when it is his duty to speak, from asserting a right which he otherwise would have had. Taking inconsistent pleas by a party makes its conduct far from satisfactory. Further, the parties should not blow hot and cold by taking inconsistent stands and prolong proceedings unnecessarily. [Vide Babu Ram v. Indra Pal Singh: (1998) 6 SCC 358 , P.R. Deshpande v. Maruti Balaram Haibatti: (1998) 6 SCC 507 and Mumbai International Airport (P) Ltd. V. Golden Chariot Airport: (2010) 10 SCC 422 : (2010) 4 SCC (Civ) 195]. 11. The impugned order of the Executive Member, Executive Committee, KHADC dated 12.07.2010 is very cryptic and there is no reason or any rational foundation for coming to the findings. The Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in Smt. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India & Anr.: AIR 1978 SC 597 held that a reasoned order or a speaking order is an essential requirement of the principles of natural justice. The Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in Smt. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India & Anr.: AIR 1978 SC 597 held that a reasoned order or a speaking order is an essential requirement of the principles of natural justice. The Apex Court in Rashmi Metaliks Limited & Anr.: (2013) 10 SCC 95 clearly held that the Court while exercising the power of judicial review of the administrative order or quasi judicial authority can examine the impugned order with reference to the grounds set out in the order itself on which it is based and not with reference to any fresh ground brought out subsequently and can invoke the jurisdiction of the judicial review of an administrative order or quasi judicial order, if it is cryptic and no reasons had been assigned for coming to the decision. Para 15 of the SCC in Rashmi Metaliks Limited case (Supra) reads as follows:- 15. The impugned judgment (Rashmi Metalik Ltd. v. Kolkatta Metropolitan Development Authority) is indubitably a cryptic one and does not contain the reasons on which the decision is predicated. Since reasons are not contained in the impugned judgment itself (Rashmi Metalik Ltd. v. Kolkatta Metropolitan Development Authority), it must be set aside on the short ground that a party cannot be permitted to travel beyond the stand adopted and expressed by it in its earlier decision. 12. The Apex Court in Ravi Yashwant Bhoir vs. District Collector, Raigad & Ors: (2012) 4 SCC 407 , held that "it is a settled proposition of law that even in administrative matters, the reasons should be recorded as it is incumbent upon the authorities to pass a speaking and reasoned order." Paras 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43 & 44 of the SCC in Ravi Yashwant Bhoir's case (Supra), read as follows:- 38. It is a settled proposition of law that even in administrative matters, the reasons should be recorded as it is incumbent upon the authorities to pass a speaking and reasoned order. 39. In Shrilekha Vidyarthi v. State of U.P. & Ors: (1991) 1 SCC 212 : 1991 SCC (L&S)742: AIR 1991 SC 537 , this Court has observed as under: (SCC P. 243, para 36). 36. ............. 39. In Shrilekha Vidyarthi v. State of U.P. & Ors: (1991) 1 SCC 212 : 1991 SCC (L&S)742: AIR 1991 SC 537 , this Court has observed as under: (SCC P. 243, para 36). 36. ............. Every such action may be informed by reason and if follows that an act un-informed by reason is arbitrary, the rule of law contemplates governance by law and not by humour, whim or caprice of the men to whom the governance is entrusted for the time being. It is the trite law that "be you ever so high, the laws are above you." This is what a man in power must remember always. 40. In L.I.C. of India v. Consumer Education and Research Centre: (1995) 5 SCC 482 : AIR 1995 SC 1811 , this Court observed that the State or its instrumentality must not take any irrelevant or irrational factor into consideration or appear arbitrary in its decision. "Duty to act fairly" is part of fair procedure envisaged under Articles 14 and 21. Every activity of the public authority or those under public duty must be received and guided by the public interest. A similar view has been reiterated by this Court in Union of India v. Mohan Lal Capoor & Ors: (1973)2 SCC 836 : 1974 SCC (L&S) 5: AIR 1974 SC 87 and Mahesh Chandra v. U.P. Financial Corpn.: (1993) 2 SCC 279 : AIR 1993 SC 935 . 41. In State of W.B. v. Atul Krishna Shaw: 1991 Supp (1) SCC 414: AIR 1990 SC 2205 , this Court observed that: (SCC p. 421, para 7) 7. .......... Giving of reasons is an essential element of administration of justice. A right to reason is, therefore, an indispensable part of sound system of judicial review. 42. In S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India: (1990) 4 SCC 594 : 1990 SCC (Cri) 669: AIR 1990 SC 1984 , it has been held that the object underlying the rules of natural justice is to prevent miscarriage of justice and secure fair play in action. 42. In S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India: (1990) 4 SCC 594 : 1990 SCC (Cri) 669: AIR 1990 SC 1984 , it has been held that the object underlying the rules of natural justice is to prevent miscarriage of justice and secure fair play in action. The expanding horizon of the principles of natural justice provides for requirement to record reasons as it is now regarded as one of the principles of natural justice, and it was held in the above case that except in cases where the requirement to record reasons is expressly or by necessary implication dispensed with, the authority must record reasons for its decision. 43. In Krishna Swami v. Union of India & Ors: (1992) 4 SCC 605 : AIR 1993 SC 1407 , this Court observed that the rule of law requires that any action or decision of a statutory or public authority must be founded on the reason stated in the order or borne out from the record. The Court further observed: (SCC p. 637, para 47) 47. Reasons are the links between the material, the foundation for their erection and the actual conclusions. They would also demonstrate how the mind of the maker was activated and actuated and their rational nexus and synthesis with the facts considered and the conclusions reached. Lest it would be arbitrary, unfair and unjust, violating Article 14 or unfair procedure offending Article 21. 44. This Court while deciding the issue in Sant Lal Gupta & Ors. v. Modern Coop Group Housing Society Ltd. & Ors: (2010) 13 SCC 336 : (2010) 4 SCC (Civ) 904, placing reliance on its various earlier judgments held as under: (SCC pp. 34546, para 27) 27. It is a settled legal proposition that not only administrative but also judicial order must be supported by reasons, recorded in it. Thus, while deciding an issue, the Court is bound to give reasons for its conclusion. It is the duty and obligation on the part of the Court to record reasons while disposing of the case. It is a settled legal proposition that not only administrative but also judicial order must be supported by reasons, recorded in it. Thus, while deciding an issue, the Court is bound to give reasons for its conclusion. It is the duty and obligation on the part of the Court to record reasons while disposing of the case. The hallmark of order and exercise of judicial power by a judicial forum is for the forum to disclose its reasons by itself and giving of reasons has always been insisted upon as one of the fundamentals of sound administration of the justice-delivery system, to make it known that there had been proper and due application of mind to the issue before the Court and also as an essential requisite of the principles of natural justice. 3......... The giving of reasons for a decision is an essential attribute of judicial and judicious disposal of a matter before Courts, and which is the only indication to know about the manner and quality of exercise undertaken, as also the fact that the Court concerned had really applied its mind. The reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion. It introduces clarity in an order and without the same, the order becomes lifeless. Reasons substitute subjectivity with objectivity. The absence of reasons renders an order indefensible/unsustainable particularly when the order is subject to further challenge before a higher forum. Recording of reasons is principle of natural justice and every judicial order must be supported by reasons recorded in writing. It ensures transparency and fairness in decision making. The person who is adversely affected must know why his application has been rejected. 13. It is fairly settled law that the power of judicial review of the executive order can be invoked when the impugned executive order is not based on any rational foundation and untenable. It ensures transparency and fairness in decision making. The person who is adversely affected must know why his application has been rejected. 13. It is fairly settled law that the power of judicial review of the executive order can be invoked when the impugned executive order is not based on any rational foundation and untenable. Keeping in view of this settled law, we read and reread the impugned order of the Executive Member, Executive Committee, KHADC dated 12.07.2010 and are of the considered view that the findings of the Executive Member, Executive Committee, KHADC in the order dated 12.07.2010 are not based on any rational foundation inasmuch as, the important issues such as (i) was there a village Dorbar of Mawlum Nginiong village on 26.01.2006?; (ii) if so, whether the proceedings/resolution of the village Dorbar held on 26.01.2006, is required to be brought to the notice or approved by the Syiem of the concerned Syiemship and also by the Executive Member, Executive Committee, KHADC or not?; (iii) was the respondent No. 4 appeared before the proforma respondent No. 5 on 24.04.2010 i.e. the village Dorbar conducted by the proforma respondent No. 5?; (iv) was the respondent No. 4 refused to appear on 27.04.2010 before the proforma respondent No. 5, who conducted the village Dorbar on 27.04.2010?; (v) was there a village Dorbar on 10.05.2010, in which the majority of the villagers unanimously resolved to appoint the appellant/writ petitioner as Sordar of Mawlum Nginiong village? and: (vi) also whether name of the village was legally changed from Mawlum Nginiong village to Mawlum Ramkdait village or not? were not at all considered and decided by the Executive Member, Executive Committee, KHADC in his judgment and order dated 12.07.2010. 14. The Apex Court in Noida Entrepreneurs Association v. Noida & Ors: (2007) 10 SCC 385 held that even orders passed by the executive have to be tested on the touchstone of reasonableness and the executive order is to be interfered with when the same is not based on any rational foundation. Para 11 of the SCC in Noida Entrepreneurs Association's case (Supra) reads as follows:- 11. A bare perusal of the order which has been quoted in its totality goes to show that the same is not based on any rational foundation. The conceptual difference between a departmental enquiry and criminal proceedings has not been kept in view. Para 11 of the SCC in Noida Entrepreneurs Association's case (Supra) reads as follows:- 11. A bare perusal of the order which has been quoted in its totality goes to show that the same is not based on any rational foundation. The conceptual difference between a departmental enquiry and criminal proceedings has not been kept in view. Even orders passed by the executive have to be tested on the touchstone of reasonableness. [See Tata Cellular v. Union of India: (1994) 6 SCC 651 and Teri Oat Estates (P) Ltd. v. U.T. Chandigarh: (2004) 2 SCC 130 ].... The Apex Court in Reliance Energy Ltd. & Anr. v. Maharashtra State Board Development Corpn. Ltd. & Ors: (2007) 8 SCC 1 held that: 39. ***** ***** ***** ***** The grounds upon which administrative action is subjected to control by judicial review are classifiable broadly under three heads, namely, illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety................. The Apex Court in Bhikhubhai Vithalbhai Patel & Ors v. State of Gujarat & Anr.: (2008) 4 SCC 144 held that: 33. The court is entitled to examine whether there has been any material available with the State Government and the reasons recorded, if any, in the formation of opinion and whether they have any rational connection with or relevant bearing on the formation of the opinion. The court is entitled particularly, in the event, when the formation of the opinion is challenged to determine whether the formation of opinion is arbitrary, capricious or whimsical. It is always open to the court to examine the question whether reasons for formation of opinion have rational connection or relevant bearing to the formation of such opinion and are not extraneous to the purposes of the statute. 15. For the foregoing reasons, we are of the considered view that the impugned judgment and order of the Executive Member, Executive Committee, KHADC dated 12.07.2010 passed in Misc. Case No. 3/2010 is called for interference; in the result, the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 04.07.2012 passed in WP(C) No. 402(SH)2010 for not interfering with the impugned judgment and order dated 12.07.2010 only for the reason that the writ court is not sitting as an appellate court against the order of the Executive Member, Executive Committee, KHADC dated 12.07.2010 is also called for interference. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 12.07.2010 passed in Misc. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 12.07.2010 passed in Misc. Case No. 3/2010 by the Executive Member, Executive Committee, KHADC and the impugned judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 04.07.2012 passed in WP(C) No. 402(SH)2010 are hereby set aside. 16. However, for doing complete justice to the parties, the case is sent down to the Executive Member, Executive Committee, KHADC for deciding the disputes between the parties/the issues indicated in the aforementioned para No. 13 de novo after giving ample opportunity to the parties to put up their respective cases. This Court hopes and trusts that the learned Executive Member, Executive Committee, KHADC shall decide the case as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment and order. 17. Writ appeal is allowed and the parties are to bear their own costs.