JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Michael Zothankhuma, J. Heard Mr. T.J. Lalnuntluanga, counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. B. Lalramenga, counsel for the respondent. 2. The petitioner's case in brief is that in pursuance to the election held for filling up of 5 (five) seats of the Village Council in Lungtian-I Village, election was held on 25.3.2014. In the election so held, 2 (two) persons from Congress party were elected as Village Council Members and 3 (three) persons from the MNF party were elected to the remaining Village council seats. 3. That, though the MNF party had secured the majority of the seats in the Village Council, the Executive Body of the Village Council was formed by the Congress members, on the direction given by the Chief Executive Member of the Lai Autonomous District Council. The MNF Village Council Members, petitioners herein, thereafter submitted a notice of "No Confidence Motion" against the Executive Body of the village Council. As no order was passed by the Executive Committee for holding a special meeting of the Lungtian-I Village Council, to take a decision on the "No Confidence Motion" filed against the 2 (two) Congress Village Council members, the petitioners submitted W.P.(C) No. 45 of 2014 in this Court. W.P.(C) No.45 of 2014 was disposed of vide Order dated 5.6.2016, wherein this Court directed the Executive Committee of the Lai Autonomous District Council to issue Orders for holding a special meeting of the Lungtian-I Village Council, to discuss and decide the "No Confidence Motion" brought by the petitioners against the Executive Body of the Village Council. 4. In pursuance to the Order dated 5.6.2014 passed in W.P.(C) No. 45 of 2014, the 'No Confidence Motion' was passed against the Congress Village Council members and thereafter, the 3 (three) MNF Village Council Members formed the Executive Body of Lungtian-I Village Council. 5. The petitioners counsel submits that subsequent to the formation of the Executive Body of the Lungtian-I Village Council by the 3 (three) petitioners, a notification dated 5.10.2016 was issued by the respondent No.3, wherein one Shri. A. Zainuntluanga, Asst. 5. The petitioners counsel submits that subsequent to the formation of the Executive Body of the Lungtian-I Village Council by the 3 (three) petitioners, a notification dated 5.10.2016 was issued by the respondent No.3, wherein one Shri. A. Zainuntluanga, Asst. Social Welfare Officer, LADC was appointed as a One Man Inquiry Commission, to inquire into the allegations made against the Lungtian-I, Village Council, pertaining to its functioning, by invoking Section 10(1) of the LADC (VC) Act, 2010, hereinafter referred to as the "2010 Act." The petitioners counsel submits that the said constitution of the One Man Inquiry Commission was not made through a public Notification, as required under Section 10 of the 2010, Act. The petitioners counsel submits that the One Man Commission thereafter visited the petitioners village on 19.10.2016 and 28.10.2016, wherein the complaint made against the petitioners by the Congress Party Unit, Lungtian-I was enquired into. The petitioners counsel submits that the One Man Commission also asked the petitioners to explain the allegations made against them with respect to the functioning of the Village Council. 6. The petitioners counsel submits that the One Man Commission submitted his report and soon thereafter, the Village Council under the petitioner No.1, was suspended for a period of 3 (three) months, vide Notification dated 8.11.2010 under Section 11(1) of the 2010, Act and in their place, the respondent Nos. 4 to 6 were appointed to take charge of the Village administration. The petitioners counsel submits that State respondents, besides not issuing a public notification while constituting a One Man Commission, had also not issued notices to the Village Council with regard to the report/findings of the One Man Commission, prior to placing the Village Council under suspension. He submits that the same being in violation of the 2010 Act and in violation of the principles of natural justice, the suspension order should be set aside. 7. Mr. B. Lalramenga, counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 submits that there is no requirement for giving a notice under the 2010 Act as the same is not provided for in the said 2010 Act. He accordingly submits that there is no infirmity with the impugned Notification dated 8.11.2016, wherein the Village Council has been suspended. 8. Mr. Mr. B. Lalramenga, counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 submits that there is no requirement for giving a notice under the 2010 Act as the same is not provided for in the said 2010 Act. He accordingly submits that there is no infirmity with the impugned Notification dated 8.11.2016, wherein the Village Council has been suspended. 8. Mr. B. Lalramenga also submits that a Notification was issued under Section 10(1) of the 2010 Act for appointing a One Man Commission constituting a One Man Commission. He submits that the constitution of a One Man Commission has been made as per the 2010 Act. 9. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties, Section 10(1) and 11(1) of the 2010 Act states as follows:- Section 10(1) : "The Executive Committee may, by public notification, appoint a Commission consisting of not more than three persons from amongst the officers of the District Council to enquire into the affairs of the Village Council if it is considered that the Village Council is too inefficient or is unable to carry on the village administration or is acting in a manner pre-judicial to the interest of the State or the District Council or is known to have been indulging in corrupt practices in the matter of village administration. The commission shall, after proper enquiry, submit its report of findings along with its recommendation to the Executive Committee within a period of time specified by the Executive Committee." Section 11(1) : "The Executive Committee may, on the recommendation of the Commission appointed under section 11 of this Act, order suspension of any Village Council for a period of three months at a time which may be extended for another three months. During the period of suspension the Executive Committee shall assume to itself all the powers and functions of the Village Council and appoint not more than three persons from amongst prominent villagers as provided by sub section (4) of section 10 of this Act." 10. A perusal of Section 10(1) shows that the Executive Committee may, by public Notification, appoint a commission. The 2010 Act clearly having provided the procedure for constituting a One Man Commission, the respondents are bound to follow the procedure as per the letter of law laid down in the 2010 Act. A perusal of Section 10(1) shows that the Executive Committee may, by public Notification, appoint a commission. The 2010 Act clearly having provided the procedure for constituting a One Man Commission, the respondents are bound to follow the procedure as per the letter of law laid down in the 2010 Act. In the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Another v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Others reported in 2014 3 SCC 183 , the Apex Court has held that where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all. 11. In view of the above, this Court finds that the constitution/appointment of a One Man Commission by the respondents without there being any public notification, has to be deemed to be bad in law and accordingly the said Commission is held to be in-valid. The records show that the appointment of the One Man Inquiry Commission has been made on a pen written paper. The same does not have any memo number, nor does it show that the said document has been made for public circulation. There is no file noting or documents to show that the appointment of the One Man Commission has been publicized in the news media or otherwise for public knowledge or that it is in public domain. 12. Section 11(1) of the 2010 Act states that the Executive Committee may, on the re-commendation of the Commission, appointed under Sub-section 1 of Section 10, order suspension of any Village Council for a period of 3 (three) months at a time which may be extended for another 3 (three) months. Perusal of the report of the One Man Commission, which has been submitted on 3.11.2016 shows that the One Man Commission had come to a finding as follows:- "Inquiry Commission had gone to Lungtian-1, Village Council on 29.10.2016 and had carefully looked into the functioning of the Lungtian-1, Village Council. After enquiry, the Inquiry Commission does not have any recommendation as to whether the Lungtian- 1 Village Council should be suspended or dissolved and leaves the said decision in the hands of the Executive Committee". 13. The finding of the One Man Commission clearly shows that no re-commendation has been made for either suspending or dissolving the Lungtian-1, Village Council, which was being run by the petitioners. 13. The finding of the One Man Commission clearly shows that no re-commendation has been made for either suspending or dissolving the Lungtian-1, Village Council, which was being run by the petitioners. In that view of the matter, this Court finds that the impugned Notification dated 8.11.2010 issued under Section 11(1) of the 2010 Act is illegal and cannot with-stand the scrutiny of law as the Village Council could not have been suspended in the absence of a recommendation from the Enquiry Commission. 14. With regard to the question of whether notice is required to be furnished to the petitioners prior to the suspension of the Village Council, the Apex Court has held in the case of Uma Nath Pandey & Ors v. State of U.P. & Anr. reported in AIR 2009 SC 2375 , that natural justice is the essence of fair adjudication, deeply rooted in tradition and conscience, to be ranked as fundamental. The purpose of following the principles of natural justice is the prevention of miscarriage of justice. 15. Prior to the 2010 Act, the repealed Lai Autonomous District (Village Council) Act, 2007 (herein after referred to as the 2007 Act) wherein Section 10 of the 2007 Act, dealt with the procedure to be followed for dissolution of a Village Council based upon the re-commendation of an Inquiry Commission. The provisions of Section 10 of the 2010 Act is similar to Section 10 and 11 of the 2010 Act. 16. In the case of Sh. Devison and Ors. v. Lai Autonomous District Council and Ors. reported in 2010 1 GLT 280, Chawngte lui Village Council was dissolved without issuing notice to the Village Council members by invoking Section 10 of the 2007 Act. There is no provision for issuing of a notice, prior to the dissolution of the Village Council, as per Section 10 of the 2007 Act also. This Court in the case of Sh. Devison and Ors. (supra) held that there was no escape for the respondent authorities from strict observance of the principles of natural justice, although no such provision was provided in the Act. Similarly, in the present case, though no provision has been provided for in the 2010 Act for issuing a notice prior to suspending a Village Council, the requirement of issuing a notice along with the report of the One Man Commission to the Village Council cannot be by-passed. 17. Similarly, in the present case, though no provision has been provided for in the 2010 Act for issuing a notice prior to suspending a Village Council, the requirement of issuing a notice along with the report of the One Man Commission to the Village Council cannot be by-passed. 17. In the case of S.L. Kapoor v. Jagmohan & Ors. reported in AIR 1981 SC 136 , it has been held in the case of dissolution of a municipal committee as follows:- "9....... A committee as soon as it is constituted, at once, assumes a certain office and status, is endowed with certain rights and burdened with certain responsibilities, all of a nature commanding respectful regard from the public. To be stripped of the office and status, to be deprived of the rights, to be removed from the responsibilities, in an unceremonious way as to suffer in public esteem, is certainly to visit the Committee with civil consequences. In our opinion the status and office and the rights and responsibilities to which we have referred and the expectation of the Committee to serve its full term of the office would certainly create sufficient interest in the Municipal Committee and their loss, if superseded, would entail civil consequences so as to justify an insistence upon the observance of the principle of natural justice before an order of supersession is passed." 18. In view of the fact that the petitioners were not given any notice by the respondents, before suspending the Lungtian-1, Village Council, this Court is of the view that the impugned suspension Order is bad in law and has to be set aside. 19. In view of the reasons stated above, the impugned Notification dated 8.11.2016 and 9.11.2016 issued by the respondent No. 3, with all consequential notifications is set aside. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. 20. The respondents shall ensure that the petitioners are allowed to function as the Executive Body of the Lungtian-1, Village Council immediately. The remuneration payable to the petitioners for the period they were suspended should be paid to them in full. Petition allowed.