ORDER 1. The brief fact of the case in a nutshell is that: “The Petitioner is the Sordar Shnong of the Mawkynroh Village, Nongspung Syiemship, East Khasi Hills, District, Meghalaya and one of the localities of that village is Dewsaw. Some residents of Dewsaw have been wanting to for Dewsaw into a separate village for some time now. However, the then Syiem of Nongspung and Dorbar in the year 2008 had rejected the proposition and the Executive Committee of the Khasi Autonomous District Council had upheld the Syiem’s verdict by the Order dated 20.01.2010 (Annexure-2). Thereafter, the matter again came up for consideration by the Executive Committee in 2012 when the present Acting Syiem of Nongspung wrote to that effect. However, the Deputy Secretary of the Executive Committee communicated to the Acting Syiem by the letter dated 04.06.2012 (Annexure-3) that the Executive Committee had rejected the proposition once again and had directed the Acting Syiem to find out whether Dewsaw should be formed as a separate village in consultation with the Petitioner and the residents of the parent village and its said locality. Subsequently, the Acting Syiem contacted the Petitioner and the Dorbar Shnong of Mawkynroh village deliberated on the issue and rejected the idea which was communicated to the Acting Syiem by the petition by his letter dated 25.06.2012 (Annexure-4). Consequently, on 05.09.2012 the Acting Syiem suspended the petitioner from the post of Sordar of Mawkynroh village and appointed another person as an Acting Syiem (Annexure-5). So, the Petitioner filed his appeal dated 07.09.2012 (Annexure-6) before the Executive Committee challenging the suspension. Meanwhile, on 20.09.2012 the Mawkynroh Dorbar Shnong adopted a resolution rejecting the suspension of the Petitioner and Appointment of the Acting Sordar and also empowering the Petitioner to remains the Sordar (Annexure-7). After that the Executive Committee of the District Council set aside and quashed the Order of suspension of the Petitioner by its Order dated 19.12.2012 (Annexure -8). However, that Order dated 19.12.2012 of the District Council contains an observation to the effect that, during the pendency of the Petitioner’s appeal the said Dewsaw locality has already been formed as a separate village which is a totally baseless and erroneous observation. However, that Order dated 19.12.2012 of the District Council contains an observation to the effect that, during the pendency of the Petitioner’s appeal the said Dewsaw locality has already been formed as a separate village which is a totally baseless and erroneous observation. Being aggrieved the Petitioner is filing this Writ Petition for appropriate declaration and for necessary directions to restraint the Respondents from forming Dewsaw as a separate village without first ascertaining that the proposition enjoys the support of the majority of Mawkynroh as required in law and also for expunging the said observation.” 2. Mr. S. Chakravarty, learned counsel appeared for and on behalf of the petitioner, who submits that, the village called Mawkynroh is a one village. Mr. Nolandro Lyngdoh was the Sordar of that village, and Dewsaw is a part and parcel of Mawkynroh village. To utter surprise, the Acting Syiem of Nongspung village Syiemship suspended the petitioner without any rhyme and reason. 3. Against the order of suspension, the petitioner approach the Executive Committee of Khasi Hills Autonomous District Council, Shillong (For short “KHADC”) which has passed an elaborate order dated 19.12.2012 which is at Annexure-8. For easy reference, the order dated 19.12.2012 is quoted hereunder: “BEFORE THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE, KHASI HILLS AUTONOMOUS DISTRICT COUNCIL, SHILLONG.” ORDER This is an Appeal filed by the Appellant against the Order dated 5/9/2012 passed by the Respondent No. 1 (Acting Syiem of Nongspung) whereby the Appellant was suspended from the post of Sordar, Mawkynroh Pyllun, Nongspung Syiemship. The Executive Committee vide office order No. DC.XXVII/Genl/127/2012/3, dated Shillong, the 27th September, 2012 was pleased to constitute a two Member Committee consisting of both of us to hear the parties in the matter connected with the Appeal filed by the Appellant against the Order of Suspension of Appellant from the post of Sordar, Mawkynroh Pyllun, Nongspung Syiemship, East Khasi Hills District, Meghalaya. The case of the Appellant in a nutshell is that he is the Sordar of Mawkynroh Pyllun, Nongspung Syiemship for a couple of years and that he has earned the love and confidence of the Village as a whole. The further case of the Appellant is that some persons from the locality Dewsaw wishes to have a separate village of their own and had approach the office of the Executive Committee, Khasi Hills Autonomous District Council also. The further case of the Appellant is that some persons from the locality Dewsaw wishes to have a separate village of their own and had approach the office of the Executive Committee, Khasi Hills Autonomous District Council also. According to the Appellant the said persons who demand for having a separate village did not provide the boundaries of the proposed new village as required by law. According to the Appellant, the office of the Executive Committee has instructed the Respondent no. 1 to find a solution to the issue. Pursuant to the direction of the Executive Committee, the Respondent No. 2 sent letter dated 3rd July, 2012 asking the Appellant to report to the office of the Respondent No. 1 along with members of the village and for which they reported before the office of the Respondent No. 1 as directed. According to the Appellant, the Respondent No. 1 forced them to accept Dewsaw as a full-fledged Village. However, the Appellant and other members of Village Mawkynroh Pyllun refuses to do so as it was against the wishes of the majority of the people of the village Mawkynroh Pyllun. It is the further case of the Appellant, that the Respondent No. 1 without giving the Appellant a chance of hearing put him under suspension without any contemplated enquiry. The suspension Order dated 5/9/2012 is annexed with the memo of appeal and seek quashing and setting aside of the same, hence the instant Appeal. Pursuant thereto Respondents filed Show Cause dated 28th September, 2012 and in their Show Cause justified the suspension by referring to the non-acceptance of the Appellant to recognize Dewsaw as a separate village and that apart Appellant refusal to appear on the appointed date and on other dates as directed by the office of the Respondents. The Respondents also raised some other issues which led to suspension of the Appellant as the Sordar of Mawkynroh Pyllun. Perused the memo of Appeal, Show Cause as well as the impugned suspension Order dated 5/9/2012 issued by the Respondent No. 1. Heard the parties. The crux of the entire dispute relates to recognition of Dewsaw as a separate village or entity and refusal of the Appellant to accept the same culminating in removal of the Appellant from his present position. Heard the parties. The crux of the entire dispute relates to recognition of Dewsaw as a separate village or entity and refusal of the Appellant to accept the same culminating in removal of the Appellant from his present position. Be that as it may, at this stage, we would like to confine ourselves to the suspension Order dated 5/9/2012 whereby the Appellant was suspended from the post of Sordar of Mawkynroh Pyllun. If the issue pertains recognition of Dewsaw as a separate entity or village, perhaps the entire issue of suspension of the Appellant from the post of Sordar Mawkynroh Pyllun is uncalled for, that too in the absence of a chance of hearing. The law is very clear an opportunity has to be provided before action is taken like suspension or removal. In the present case without an iota of doubt the suspension of an elected Sordar of a Village without hearing him and that too due to disputes arising out of recognition of a Dewsaw as a village clearly without jurisdiction. We on perusal of the impugned order do not see Respondent No. 1 contemplating holding of enquiry against the Appellant, though at the stage of hearing it was pointed out by the Respondents that the suspension is merely temporary. Plain reading of the impugned order goes to show that the intention of the respondent is otherwise and this clearly is unacceptable. We have noted that during the pendency of the instant appeal, Dewsaw is now recognized as a village, thereby ending all disputes or issues on the matter. We would like to note that creation of a Village or carving of a Village from another village at this juncture is governed by the Elaka Act of 1991 and has to be strictly in terms of section 3 of the said Act. Accordingly, after due deliberation, we are constrained to hold that the impugned order dated 5/9/2012 is bad in law and accordingly the same is hereby quashed and set aside. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal is allowed and the Appellant is restored back to his former position as Sordar of Mawkynroh. With the above, the matter is disposed off accordingly. Sd/- Shri O. Pamshnong, Executive Member i/c Fisheries, etc. Khasi Hills Autonomous District Council, Shillong Sd/- Shri L. Blah, Executive Member i/c Elaka Admn., etc. Khasi Hills Autonomous District Council, Shillong.” 4. Mr. With the above, the matter is disposed off accordingly. Sd/- Shri O. Pamshnong, Executive Member i/c Fisheries, etc. Khasi Hills Autonomous District Council, Shillong Sd/- Shri L. Blah, Executive Member i/c Elaka Admn., etc. Khasi Hills Autonomous District Council, Shillong.” 4. Mr. S. Chakravarty, learned counsel for the petitioner draw the attention of the court to the notification dated 2nd December, 1991 issued by the Government of Meghalaya, District Council Affairs Department, Orders by the Governor which is at Annexure-1 and stretched on section 3 of the said notification. The same is reproduced here as under: “3. Formation of new villages and alteration of areas. Boundaries or names of existing villages – The chief and his Durbar with the approval of the Executive Committee may, if the majority of the people of the village or villages so desire, by public notification: (i) form a new village by separation of territory from any village or villages or by uniting two or more villages or part of villages or by uniting any territory to a part of any village. (ii) increase the area of any village. (iii) diminish the area of any village. (iv) alter the boundaries of any village. (v) alter the name of any village.” Mr. S. Chakravarty, learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner was reinstated to his original post, but only aggrieved by the sentenced as mentioned in the order dated 19.12.2012 that, “We have noted that during the pendency of the instant appeal, Dewsaw is now recognized as a village, thereby ending all disputes or issues on the matter.” Mr. S. Chakravarty, learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that without following the provision of section 3 of the above mentioned notification, Dewsaw cannot be declared as a separate village as such, he prays that necessary order may be passed. 5. On the other hand, Ms. P.S. Nongbri, learned counsel for the KHADC/respondents No. 1 and 2 submits that, it is a fact that Dewsaw Village has never been declared or recognized as a separate village. It was just a mere observation of two members of the Executive Committee, KHADC, Shillong and the same has already been admitted in Para 9 of the affidavit. 6. Mr. P.N. Nongbri, learned counsel for the respondents No. 3 and 4 also expressed the same view. 7. It was just a mere observation of two members of the Executive Committee, KHADC, Shillong and the same has already been admitted in Para 9 of the affidavit. 6. Mr. P.N. Nongbri, learned counsel for the respondents No. 3 and 4 also expressed the same view. 7. After hearing the submissions advanced by the learned counsel at Bar, and after going through section 3 of the notification dated 2nd December, 1991 as quoted above, I am of the view that, for creating a new village, the most important criteria is that the majority of the village should come forward to create a separate village, and I am sure that before proceeding to create a separate village, the procedures will have to be followed, so to record the majority opinion without which, the KHADC, Shillong has no power to declare any village as a separate village or amalgamate two villages as per their whim and will. Therefore, I agree with the submission advanced by Mr. S. Chakravarty, learned counsel for the petitioner, and I further observed that from the order dated 19.12.2012 as well as the notification dated 2nd December, 1991, the Executive Committee of the KHADC, Shillong cannot declare “Dewsaw” as a separate village, the same has also been admitted in the affidavit of the respondents No. 1 and 2 at Para 9. Consequently, the sentence “We have noted that during the pendency of the instant appeal, Dewsaw is now recognized as a village, thereby ending all disputes or issues on the matter” is hereby expunged from the order dated 19.12.2012. 8. With this observation and direction, the instant petition is allowed to that extent and stands disposed of. 9. No order as to cost.