B.K. Sharma, J.- Heard Mr. C. Lalramzauva, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. A.R. Malhotra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. M. Zbthankhuma, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Rosangzuala Ralte, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. 2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have called for preparation of Village Council Electoral Roll 2013 within the Mara Autonomous District Council area. According to the petitioners, the fresh preparation of Electoral Roll by Annexure-8 to the writ petition, for the Village Council Lopu-II (Khaikhy) has deprived them of their voting rights. Referring to the Annexure-7 Electoral Roll to the writ petition that was prepared earlier for the village Khaikhy, it is the case of the petitioners that their names having been included in the said Electoral Roll, could not have been deleted altogether in the subsequent Milage Council Electoral Roll 2013 (Annexure-8). According to the petitioners, they could not have been deprived of their voting rights and thereby their Constitutional rights could not have been defeated. 3. The writ petition was moved on 02.05.2013, on which date an interim order was passed in respect of counting of votes pertaining to two different phases of election. It was further provided that in view of the deletion of the names of the petitioners from the aforesaid Electoral Roll along with 122 other voters, the election in respect of Lopu-II (Khaikhy) should not be held. It is because of the said interim order, no election could be held in respect of Lopu-II (Khaikhy) village till now. 4. The respondents have filed their counter affidavit, in which they have enclosed the Annexure-I copy of the order dated 09.08.2012, which reads as follows:- "No. MADC. 48/LAD/2012-2013 LOCAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT MARA AUTONOMOUS DISTRICT COUNCIL SAIHA ------------ Dated Saiha, the 9th August, 2012. ORDER The Executive Committee of the Mara Autonomous District Council is of the opinion that Khaikhy Village Council and Leisai Milage Council are under extreme circumstances for abolition due to the fact that both the villages have no longer consisted of the minimum number of houses required for the establishment or constitution of a village council under the Mara Autonomous District (Village Council) Act, 1974 as amended from time to time. Therefore, the Executive Committee, in exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Section 3 (1) of the above mentioned Act, is deeply regretted to order the abolition of the said two village councils, viz. the Khaikhy Village Council and the Lesai Village Council, with immediate effect. Sd/- K. Hrahmo Executive Member i/c. Local Administration Department Mara Autonomous District Council Saiha" 5. In paragraph 3 of the counter affidavit, the respondents referring to the provision of Section 3 (1) of the Mara Autonomous District (Village Councils) Act, 1974 has stated thus: "3. That in reply to para 7 of the writ petition, it may be humbly submitted that due to many administrative problems and reasons on the request/order of the Respondents, more than half of the residents of Khaikhy Village shifted to Lopu Village. Also the entire residents of the Leisai Village shifted to Lopu Village in 2010. In view of the shifting of the above persons, Lopu Village Council which earlier had one Village Council was trifurcated into Lopu I, II and III Village Councils. The residents of Khaikhy Village were grouped under the Lopu-II Village Council. However, the writ petitioners No.2 to 5 remained in Khaikhy which now had around 30 houses only. Thereafter, the existing Khaikhy Village Council was abolished by the Mara Autonomous District Council vide order dt. 09.08.2012 as per the proviso to Section 3(1) of the 1974 Act, which states "There shall be a Village Council in each Village within the Mara Autonomous District having a number of not less than 50 (fifty) houses. Provided that Village Councils in certain Villages if any, with less than 50 houses which have been in existence before the commencement of this Act shall continue to exist unless later abolished or amalgamated with any other Village Council or Councils as the case may be, by the Executive Committee." The reason that the 4 writ petitioners' names were deleted from the electoral roll for the Village Council elections was due to the fact that the said 4 writ petitioners Nos.2-5 did not shift their residence to Lopu II and remained in Khaikhy Village, which no longer had a Village Council. It may be submitted that Section 3 (1) of the Mara Autonomous District (Village Council) Act, 1974 allows for the establishment and abolishment of a Village Council. It may be submitted that Section 3 (1) of the Mara Autonomous District (Village Council) Act, 1974 allows for the establishment and abolishment of a Village Council. Section 3 (3) of the Mara Autonomous District (Village Council) Act, 1974 states that "Members of the Village Council shall be elected by the residents of the Village concerned who are enlisted as voters in the latest electoral roll of the election to the members of the District Council". It may also be submitted that the distance between Khaikhy and Lopu Village is 18 km. As the writ petitioners No. 2-5 are not residents of Lopu Village, there was no question of them being included in the electoral roll for elections to the Village Councils as persons whose names are in the electoral roll of the election to the Mara Autonomous District Council elections. They will have to be residents of the particular village in which the Village Council are being held. It may also be submitted that Rule 2 (h) of the Mara Autonomous District (Election to Village Councils) Rules, 1991 states that "Electoral Roll" means the Electoral Roll of a constituency of Mara Autonomous District Council as modified and amended by die Executive Committee which shall include the names of all persons who are bona fide residents and entitled to vote for election to the Village Council." 6. On perusal of the aforesaid provision of the Act, it is seen that the authority is empowered under the proviso to Section 3(1) to abolish Village Council if the number of houses is less than 50. It was under the said provision, the Annexure-I Order dated 09.08,2012 referred to above was passed for abolishment of the Khaikhy Village Council and me Lesai Village Council. The petitioners being residents of Khaikhy Village, they do not have any Village Council as reflected in the order dated 09.08.2012. This aspect of the matter has been clearly mentioned in paragraph 3 of the counter affidavit quoted above. 7. There is no challenge in the writ petition to the aforesaid provision of the Act, 1974 and also the consequential order dated 09.08.2012. If because of the position that has emerged as reflected in the said order in reference to Section 3 of the Act of 1974, no fault can be attributed to the respondents. 8. 7. There is no challenge in the writ petition to the aforesaid provision of the Act, 1974 and also the consequential order dated 09.08.2012. If because of the position that has emerged as reflected in the said order in reference to Section 3 of the Act of 1974, no fault can be attributed to the respondents. 8. The counter affidavit was filed on 04.06.2013 and the petitioners have not filed any affidavit-in-reply to the said counter affidavit denying the contentions raised therein and thus, the same go un-refuted and shall be deemed to have been admitted. 9. As regards the plea of the petitioners that because of the action on the part of the respondents, 112 voters have also lost their voting rights, suffice is to say that the petitioners cannot represent the said voters by filing the instant writ petition. There is also no authorization permitting the petitioners to agitate grievance for them. This writ petition is also not in the form of PIL. 10. For all the aforesaid reasons, the relief(s) prayed for in the writ petition cannot be granted and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Consequently, the interim order dated 02.05.2013 stands vacated. There shall be no order as to costs. 11. At this stage, the learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that if the petitioners shift to Lopu-II (Khaikhy) Village, they may be permitted to exercise their franchise. It will be open for them to do so, but the same cannot delay the election for the Lopu-II Village Council. If the petitioners are desirous to shift to Lopu-II (Khaikhy) village, they may do so atleast before 1 (one) month ahead of the election as the election can't be halted indefinitely awaiting their shifting to the village. In the event of such shifting of the petitioners with due intimation to the authority, consequential action in the matter may be undertaken for incorporation of their names in the electoral roll.