1. Heard, Mr. T.J. Mahanta, learned senior counsel for the petitioner assisted by Mr. M. Singh, advocate. Also heard Mr. P.N. Goswami, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.7 and Mr. H. Rahman, learned State counsel representing respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4. 2. For the purpose of deciding this writ petition finally upon the fact situation as emerging from the writ petition and counter affidavits on record, notice to the respondent Nos.5 and 6 are not deemed necessary. 3. Challenge to this writ petition is to the minutes of the meeting dated 26.12.2014 (Annexure 6) of the General Council Meeting of Tiwa Autonomous Council as well as to the notification dated 30.12.2014 (Annexure 7) issued by the Department for Welfare Plains Tribes and Backward Class, whereby the respondent No. 7 was notified as the Chief Executive Member of Tiwa Autonomous Council, Morigaon. 4. The short ground of challenge made by the petitioners is to the effect that the petitioner was not aware of the holding of the meeting dated 26.12.2014. Besides, the said meeting of 26.12.2014 was in utter violation of section 29, sub-section (2) of the Tiwa Autonomous Council Act, 1995. For ready reference, section 29 of the Act extracted hereunder : "29. Meeting of the Executive Council. - (1) The Executive Council shall meet at least once in every three months for transaction of its business at such place and time as the Chief Executive councillor may direct. (2) The meeting shall be convened by the Chief Executive Councilor by giving seven clear days notice in writing to each member of the Executive Council." 5. It is the contention of the petitioners that since 7 clear days notice in writing had not been served upon the petitioners, as such, the meeting of 26.12.2014 is wholly illegal. Consequently, the notification dated 30.12.2014 is also non est in law, inasmuch as the petitioners had not received any notice as contemplated under section 29 of the Act. 6. Responding to the arguments advanced by Mr. T.J. Mahanta, learned senior counsel, the respondent No. 7 represented by Mr. P.N. Goswami, learned .counsel contends that the petitioners were full well aware of the meeting of 26.12.2014. 6. Responding to the arguments advanced by Mr. T.J. Mahanta, learned senior counsel, the respondent No. 7 represented by Mr. P.N. Goswami, learned .counsel contends that the petitioners were full well aware of the meeting of 26.12.2014. In fact, the run up to the meeting of 26.12.2014 was the earlier meeting held on 22.12.2014, so convened in strict compliance to the directions of the hon'ble Apex Court as contended in the order dated 17.12.2014 passed in SLP(C) No. 35335/2014. Mr. Goswami, learned counsel refers to the minutes of the meeting dated 22.12.2014 which forms part of the records and enclosed to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent No.7 at Page No. 92. While referring to the said minutes of 22.12.2014, Mr. Goswami, learned counsel, submits that the said minutes was withheld and not made part of the writ petition. Reference has been made to the minutes of the said meeting dated 22.12.2014 to drive home the point that the petitioners had participated in the said meeting and was also aware of the meeting Scheduled on 26.12.2014, on which date an election would be held by the General Council for electing the new Chief Executive Councilor. Mr. Goswami, learned counsel, by referring to the said minutes of the meeting dated 22.12.2014 also contends that the statements made in paragraph 7 of the writ petition to the effect that in the said meeting the candidature of the petitioner No. 1 was accepted as In-charge CEM of the Council is absolutely in-correct. Further, reference is made to the statements made in Paragraph 9 of the writ petition to contend that the meeting held on 26.12.2014 did not come by way of a surprise to the petitioners. Mr. Goswami, learned counsel, reiterates that the meeting held on 26.12.2014 was well within the knowledge of the petitioners, as would be apparent from the minutes of the meeting dated 22.12.2014. Another counter allegation is with regard to the statements made in paragraph 1 where it is stated that the petitioners are the elected members to the Tiwa Autonomous Council. Mr. Goswami learned counsel, refutes the statements to say that save and except the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3, rest of the petitioners are elected members. In fact petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are the nominated members without having any voting rights. 7. Challenge to the maintainability of the writ petition has also been made by Mr. Mr. Goswami learned counsel, refutes the statements to say that save and except the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3, rest of the petitioners are elected members. In fact petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are the nominated members without having any voting rights. 7. Challenge to the maintainability of the writ petition has also been made by Mr. Goswami, learned counsel, by contending that the minutes of the meeting dated 22.12.2014, which was the parent decision for holding the meeting of 26.12.2014, has not been put to challenge. The resolutions adopted in the said meeting dated 22.12.2014 reads as under : Resolution No. 1 : Today's meeting unanimously resolved to accept the resignation letter dated 19.12.2014 issued by Sri Ramakanta Dewri resigning from the post of CEM and also resolved that the post of CEM has fallen vacant. Resolution No. 2: The decision of the Ex-CEM, Sri Ramakanta Dewri to illegally handover charge of In-charge CEM to Jiban Ch. Konwar on 19.12.2014 has been unanimously cancelled by today's House and resolved accordingly. Resolution No. 3: Today's House resolved that until a new CEM is elected, the Deputy Sri Bipin Ch. Bordoloi be handed over the charge of In-charge CEM, so as to run the office and to convene the meeting of the General Council on 26.12.2014 to elect a new CEM. 8. With regard to the scope and ambit of section 29 of the Tiwa Autonomous Council Act 1995, Mr. P.N. Goswami, learned counsel submits that the said provisions are wholly inapplicable in the facts and circumstances of this case. According to Mr. Goswami, learned counsel, the requirements of a notice is only in respect of a meeting of the Executive Council and such requirement cannot be extended to a meeting of the General Council. In support, reference is made to section 13 of the Act which provides for meeting of the General Council. It is contended that the provisions of section 13 do not lay down any requirement of a notice, save and except that the meeting of the General Council would be held at such time as may be notified by the Chief Executive Councilor. It is the contention of the respondent No. 7 that in terms of section 13 of the Act the meeting of 26.12.2014 was convened and held, as notified by the Chief Executive Councilor in the meeting dated 22.12.2014. Mr. It is the contention of the respondent No. 7 that in terms of section 13 of the Act the meeting of 26.12.2014 was convened and held, as notified by the Chief Executive Councilor in the meeting dated 22.12.2014. Mr. Goswami, learned counsel, again reiterates that each of the petitioners had participated in the meeting of 22.12.2014 and had fully acknowledged the holding of the proposed meeting on 26.12.2014. 9. As regards handing over charge of Chief Executive Member to the petitioner No. 1 by the earlier CEM, i.e., Sri Ramakanta Dewri, Mr. Goswami, learned counsel, contends that the same is illegal and very correctly the same was interfered with in the meeting of 22.12.2014. Referring to the amendment brought about to the Tiwa Autonomous Council Act, 1995 by the Amendment Act, 2001, Mr. Goswami, learned counsel contends that sub-section (4) of section 6 also includes a member to be the Deputy Chief Executive Councilor of the Executive Council and, therefore, in case of any vacancy and until a regular CEM is elected, the state of affairs and responsibility to act as In-charge CEM would fall upon the Deputy Chief Executive Councilor of the Executive Council. In the instant case, in terms of the said provisions, the earlier incumbent holding the post of CEM could not have given the reins of charge to the petitioner No. 1. 10. I have heard the rival submissions and contentions urged by the parties. It is indeed a sad state of affairs that the writ petition in the present form is utterly lacking in material particulars. There is no manner of doubt that the participation of the petitioners in the meeting of 22.12.2014 has been withheld in the writ petition. Moreover, the minutes of the meeting dated 22.12.2014, which forms the fulcrum of the present dispute, has not been enclosed in the writ petition. It is only because of the respondent No. 7 that the said important document has come to the notice of this court. Also the statements made in paragraphs 1 and 7 of the writ petition is ex facie false. 11. Looking at the facts and circumstances above there cannot be any other option but to dismiss this writ petition at the motion stage. The facts emerging from the writ petition is a far cry from the adage "he who seeks equity must come with clean hands". 12. 11. Looking at the facts and circumstances above there cannot be any other option but to dismiss this writ petition at the motion stage. The facts emerging from the writ petition is a far cry from the adage "he who seeks equity must come with clean hands". 12. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed, however, without any order as to costs. However, the petitioners are cautioned to be careful in future while making application for invoking the writ jurisdiction of this court.