Research › Search › Judgment

Meghalaya High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 5 (MEG)

Wankupar Syiemlieh v. State Of Meghalaya

2016-07-04

S.R.SEN

body2016
JUDGMENT : S.R. Sen, J Heard Mr. S. Thapa, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. N.D. Chullai, learned Sr. GA assisted by Mr. B. Khyriem, learned GA for the State respondent No. 1. 2. The petitioner's case in a nutshell is that: "This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus and/or Certiorari and/or any other writ, order or direction of like nature challenging the Impugned in-action of the Respondent authorities in not giving effect to the rules as provided under Assam and Meghalaya Autonomous District (Constitution of District Councils) Rule, 1951 in not declaring the Petitioner as Returned Candidate under Rule 16 (3) of the Rule of 1951, in respect of 22-Nongspung-Sohiong District Council Constituency on vacancy being created in the Khasi Hills Autonomous District Council due to resignation tendered by the Returned Candidate of the 22--Nongspung-Sohiong District Council Constituency. The inaction on the part of the Respondent in not giving effect to the legitimate expectation of the Petitioner pursuant to the notification issued under sub-rule (6) of Rule 16 of Assam and Meghalaya Autonomous Districts (Constitution of District Councils) Rules, 1951 under order from His Excellency the Governor of Meghalaya, in spite of vacancy arising thereon due to the restoration of the returned candidate. That the Petitioner having not been declared as returned candidate being the second highest receiver of valid votes and on resignation being tendered in spite of the relevant Rules being very specific and categorical in that regard, the Humble Petitioner being aggrieved has approached this Hon'ble Court for redressal of his genuine grievance". 3. At the outset, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, he could not find any specific law or precedent that if an elected member of the District Council resigns, then the second person who is in the list is to be appointed as a member of the District Council. 4. In my view, the members of the District Council are elected by the people. So, their position cannot be compared with the candidates selected in the interview. For example, if three persons are selected and if one is found unfit or otherwise, the second person who is in the list, he can be appointed. Hence, the matter is dismissed and stands disposed of.