JUDGMENT The instant writ petition is directed against Annexure-5 (Complaint Petition dated 10.11.2010), Annexure-6 (Show Cause Notice), Annexure-7 (Order dated 15.12.2010) and Annexure-8 (Notification dated 08.01.2011) 2. The petitioner’s case in a nutshell is that: “This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India invoking the Writ jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court against the impugned Order dated 27th April, 2011 of the Executive Committee, Khasi Hills Autonomous District Council, Shillong whereby the Executive Committee of the Khasi Hills Autonomous District Council upheld the Order dated 15.12.2010 passed by the Syiem of Maharam Syiemship for conducting of referendum against the Petitioner, Myntri of Rangjadong Village, Maharam Syiemship in complete violation of the provisions of the Khasi Hills Autonomous District Council (Nomination and Election of the Syiem, Deputy Syiem and Electors of Hima Maharam) Act, 2006 an the Principles of Natural justice. The Humble Writ Petitioner was Myntri of the Rangjadong Village, Maharam Syiemship for the last 15 years since appointed as such, by the Syiem of Maharam Syiemship and his Hima Durbar vide Sanad under letter No. MS/V-Ad/43/96/402 dated Mawkyrwat, the 9th February, 1996. The Opposite Party/Respondent No. 8 and 9 filed complaint against the Petitioner with the Opposite Party/Respondent No. 7. The Opposite Party/Respondent No. 7 without enquiry and trial into the allegations made in the Complaint Petition issued the order on 15.12.2010 for Referendum. Against this order the Petitioner moved the authorities of the Khasi Hills Autonomous District Council, Shillong. The Executive Committee of the Khasi Hills Autonomous District Council, Shillong upheld the Order dated 15.12.2010 issued by the Opposite Party/Respondent No. 7. Subsequently, the Opposite Party/Respondent No. 6 and 7 appointed the Opposite Party/Respondent No. 8 as regular/life-time Myntri of the Rangjadong Village in place of the Humble Writ Petitioner. Hence this Writ Petition”. 3. The learned counsel, Mr. B.M.R. Chyne appeared for and on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as a Myntri and was functioning without any interruption for a long period, but due to some conspiracy between the respondents, a complaint of no confidence was submitted to the Syiem of Maharam Syiemship, and on the basis of the complaint, the petitioner was removed from the post of Myntri without giving any opportunity of being heard or without proof of any allegation. The learned counsel further argued that there is no provision of referendum under the Khasi Hills Autonomous District Council (Nomination and Election of the Syiem, Deputy Syiem and Electors of Hima Maharam) Act, 2006. Hence, the removal of the petitioner was illegal and as such Annexure-5, 6, 7 and 8 needs to be quashed. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel, Mr. B. Bhattacharjee appeared for and on behalf of respondents’ No. 8 and 9 submits that the Members of the Durbar of the Village had lost the confidence on the petitioner, as such, a complaint was lodged vide Annexure-5 and in response to Annexure-5 a show cause was sought from the petitioner who submitted the show cause, and thereafter, a referendum was called for where majority of the people voted against the petitioner. So, he has been removed vide Notification dated 08.01.2011 and further submitted that there is nothing wrong in the order. 5. The learned counsel, Mr. K. Baruah appearing for and on behalf of respondents' No. 6 and 7 endorsed the submission made by the learned counsel for respondents' No. 8 and 9, Mr. B. Bhattacharjee. 6. The learned counsel for respondents' No. 1 to 5, Ms. P.S. Nongbri submitted that the court may passed any order as found deemed fit and proper. 7. On perusal of the writ petition on record at Para 12, it is clear that the show cause notice has been submitted by the petitioner against the complaint petition filed by the respondents' No. 8 and 9. Therefore, it is not correct that the petitioner did not get any opportunity to file the show cause. On further perusal of the Annexure-5 it also appears that a no confidence motion has been placed by respondents' No. 8 and 9 where 42 (forty two) persons have signed the no confidence motion. 8. Annexure-6 disclose Incharge Village Administration, Maharam Syiemship vide letter dated 18.11.2010 invited the show cause against the complaint from the petitioner. On further perusal of the Annexure-5 it also appears that a no confidence motion has been placed by respondents' No. 8 and 9 where 42 (forty two) persons have signed the no confidence motion. 8. Annexure-6 disclose Incharge Village Administration, Maharam Syiemship vide letter dated 18.11.2010 invited the show cause against the complaint from the petitioner. The reason for referendum has been disclosed in Annexure-7 dated 15.12.2010 which is reproduced herein below: “(ENGLISH TRANSLATION) OFFICE OF THE SYIEM OF MAHARAM SYIEMSHIP No. MS/V-Ad/64/10/805/Dated Mawkyrwat, the 15th December, 2010 Shri Spolland K. Dewsaw and Ors ……Petitioners Shri Kingland Thongni, Myntri ……Opposite Party The Petition dated 10.11.2010 filed by Shri Spolland K. Dewsaw and 42 others from the Rangjadong village against Shri Kingland Thongni, Myntri is heard, opportunity given and heard their submissions till 11.12.2010. The Petitioners alleged that the Opposite Party never call Durbar meeting since 2007 till date. They also stated under his Myntriship there is no security and peace in the village. Therefore they state that they have lost the confidence and wanted to remove him from the post of Myntri. The Opposite Party made the submission and submitted his statements prepared by him. He stated that he has convened two Durbar meetings that is on 18.03.2008 and on 29.11.2009. He also tried to convene the Durbar Meeting on 06.04.2009, members could not attend. He stated that he convened the Durbar meeting on 29.11.2008 but the Opposition did not attend the Durbar. Further the Opposite Party stated that he moved the Office of the BDO under RTI to know regarding the implementations of the NREC schemes. Therefore, the Myntri could not convene Durbar meeting, the Opposition are not attending durbar as shown from the durbar register dated 06.04.2009 they have not signed the Register. Regarding making application under RTI to the BDO regarding NREC schemes the Executive Durbar or the village Durbar has not asked the Myntri to do so, but the Myntri did it himself and his action is wrong. Therefore it is decided that this matter be brought before the village Durbar. The members of the durbar will take decision by way of Referendum as to whether the majority of the members of the Durbar are having the confidence on the Myntri. Therefore it is decided that this matter be brought before the village Durbar. The members of the durbar will take decision by way of Referendum as to whether the majority of the members of the Durbar are having the confidence on the Myntri. The members of the Durbar for the Referendum shall be male adult members about 18 years old and who are having their names in the Electoral roll of the Rangjadong village till December, 2010. The Durbar meeting for the Referendum shall be held on 06.01.2011 from 10 A.M till 1 o’clock evening. All members of the Durbar of the Rangjadong village are requested to attend the Durbar meeting for Referendum without fail and the Referendum shall be conducted by the Myntris appointed for this matter. Syiem, Maharam Syiemship, Mawkyrwat”. 9. From the Notification dated 08.01.2011 Annexure-8 it is also clear that out of 72(seventy two) members of the Durbar 44(forty four) participated in the referendum and signed in the no confidence motion against the petitioner. The said notification is also reproduced herein below: “English Translation OFFICE OF THE SYIEM OF MAHARAM SYIEMSHIP, MAWKYRWAT No. MS/V-Ad/84/11/810/Dated Mawkyrwat, the 8th January, 2011 NOTIFICATION This is for the general information of the people in Rangjadong Village that as per the Decision issued by the Syiem dated 15.12.2010, Referendum was held on 06.01.2011. That as per the Report of the Myntris who were deputed by the Syiem to perform the work, out of the 72 members of the Durbar of Rangjadong Village having their names in the Electoral Roll, 44 Villagers participated in the Referendum, all the 44 signed that they have lost confidence in Shri Kingland Thongni as the Myntri. So I have been instructed to issue this Notification that as per the result of the Referendum, Shri Kingland Thongni has lost the office of Myntri of Rangjadong Village. It has been arranged to appoint an Acting Myntri to run the administration of the Village till further decision. Round Seal Office of the Syiem of Maharam Syiemship, Mawkyrwat Sd/- Illegible, (M. Myrthong), Myntri I/C Village Administration, Maharam Syiemship”. 10. Section 2 Clause ‘k’ of the United Khasi-Jaintia Hills Autonomous District (Appointment and Succession of Chiefs and Headmen) Act, 1959 defines “Headmen” means a “Myntri” a Syiem Raid, a Basan, a Lyngdoh Raid, a Matabor, Elector, a Pastor, a Sangot and village elder (a Sirdar Shnong, Sirdar Raid and Rangbah Shnong). 10. Section 2 Clause ‘k’ of the United Khasi-Jaintia Hills Autonomous District (Appointment and Succession of Chiefs and Headmen) Act, 1959 defines “Headmen” means a “Myntri” a Syiem Raid, a Basan, a Lyngdoh Raid, a Matabor, Elector, a Pastor, a Sangot and village elder (a Sirdar Shnong, Sirdar Raid and Rangbah Shnong). Section 9 of the said Act also made a provision for removal and suspension of Headmen wherein, in Clause ‘h’ it has been mentioned that: “He has lost the confidence of the majority of the members of the clan that elect him or by the persons eligible to elect the headman concern”. 11. On bare perusal of Section 9 it is understood that there is a provision for referendum and the majority of the Electoral or persons eligible to elect can remove the Headman or Myntri from the post. 12. In this case exactly that had happened. Therefore, I did not find anything wrong in the impugned Annexures referred above challenged in this writ petition, neither, the petitioners' counsel could brought anything on record that there was any manipulation in the referendum, or the complaint has been lodged without any basis nor could point out the violation of the principle of natural justice. Therefore, considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel, and for the reasons discussed above, I did not find any scope to interfere with the Annexure-5, 6, 7 and 8 referred above. Hence, this instant writ petition is hereby dismissed and stands disposed of. 13. No order as to costs.