Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1317 (GAU)

K. C. Lalfala v. State of Mizoram

2017-09-21

AJIT BORTHAKUR

body2017
JUDGMENT : Ajit Borthakur, J. 1. Heard C. Lalramzauva, learned senior counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. Samuel Vanlalhriata Chhangte, learned Govt. Advocate for the State respondents. By this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ petitioners, who are the President, Vice-President and Treasurer of the Vaitin Village Council, Vaitin have challenged the legality and validity of the impugned Notification vide Memo No. B.14017/91/2015-LAD/VC, dt. 23.6.2017, issued by the respondent No. 2-The Secretary to the Govt. of Mizoram, Local Administration Department (LAD), Aizawl, by which the Village Council of Vaitin has been suspended for a period of 3 (three) months by invoking the provision of Section 25(1) of the Lushai Hills District (Village Council) Act, 1953 (In short 'LHD(V/C) Act, 1953') and pursuant thereto, issue of the letter No. B.12018/263/2017-DLAO(A), dated 27.06.2017, by the respondent No. 3 informing the petitioners about suspension of Vaitin Village Council for a period of 3 (three) months. 2. The petitioners have contended that they were elected in Bye-Election held on 19.05.2016 to Vaitin Village Council. According to the petitioners, after taking over charge of the Office of the President of the said Village Council, the petitioner No. 1 had approached the Joint Director, ICAR, Kolasib, requesting him to hold training and demonstration programme of Piggery and Poultry farming for the farmers of Vaitin Village vide his letter, dated 15.5.2016, which was handed over to the said Officer on 19.06.2016. The petitioners' further contention is that subsequently, the petitioner No. 1 having realized that he had mistakenly given the date of the aforesaid letter dated 15.05.2016 instead of 15.06.2016 under his initial, issued a Corrigendum letter, dated 13.08.2016, stating that the date of the said order of his letter was wrongly shown as May, 2016, which may be read as June, 2016 and that he had inadvertently put May instead of June in the aforesaid letter. 3. The petitioners have further contended that subsequently, a complaint was lodged by Sh. Rintluanga and Sh. Lianzuala of Vaitin Village alleging that the petitioner No. 1 illegally possessed 2 VCP seals. 3. The petitioners have further contended that subsequently, a complaint was lodged by Sh. Rintluanga and Sh. Lianzuala of Vaitin Village alleging that the petitioner No. 1 illegally possessed 2 VCP seals. The aforesaid complaint was subsequently referred to the Ombudsman Local Body at Sikulpuikawn, Aizawl for necessary enquiry and adjudication, whereupon, the matter was investigated/enquired into, which was completed on the same day and the final order was also passed on the same day by the Ombudsman Local Body, but no copy thereof was furnished to the petitioners. Inspite of this, the petitioners were served with a Show Cause Notice, dated 11.04.2017, whereby they were asked to Show Cause as to why the said Village Council should not be dissolved under Section 25(1) of the LHD(V/C) Act, 1953 within 10 days. 4. The petitioners submitted their reply, dated 21.04.2017, to the said Show Cause Notice explaining that they were not in possession of any duplicate seal and that the application submitted by the petitioner No. 1 to the Joint Director, ICAR, Kolasib was inadvertently dated as 15.05.2016 instead of 15.06.2016 and that as soon as the mistake was detected, the Corrigendum, dated 13.8.2015, was issued for necessary rectification. The petitioners have further stated in their reply that they were not possessing 2 different seals in the name of the President of Vaitin Village Council and that the allegation made against them was without any basis. However, by the impugned Notification vide Memo No. B. 14017/91/2015-LAD/VC, dated 23.06.2017, the respondent No. 2, the Secretary to the Govt. of Mizoram, Local Administration Department (LAD), Aizawl placed Vaitin Village Council under suspension as per Section 25(1) of the LHD(V/C) Act, 1953 for a period of 3 (three) months with immediate effect, which was served upon the petitioners on 28.06.2017 by the respondent No. 3, District Local Administration Officer, Local Administration Department, Aizawl District, Aizawl vide letter, No. B. 12018/263/2017-DLAO(A), dt. 28.06.2017, notifying further that the respondent No.4, Sh. K. Lalchhanliana, Assistant Field Inspector (AFI), was appointed to take over the charge of the said Council during the period of suspension. 5. Mr. 28.06.2017, notifying further that the respondent No.4, Sh. K. Lalchhanliana, Assistant Field Inspector (AFI), was appointed to take over the charge of the said Council during the period of suspension. 5. Mr. C. Lalramzauva, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, submits that in the backdrop of the facts of the case, the provision of Section 25 of LHD(V/C) Act, 1953 cannot be invoked as reading of the said provision does not provide for dissolution or suspension of any Village Council except when the said Village Council is found to be too inefficient or is not able to carry on the Village Administration or is acting in the manner pre-judicial to the interest of the State or for any other reasons considered to be sufficient for such dissolution by the authorities concerned and as such, the allegations raised against the Village Council do not attract the grounds incorporated in Section 25 of the said Act justifying suspension of the Village Council. 6. Mr. C. Lalramzauva, learned senior counsel, further submits that the Village Council being the grass root democratic institution and a statutory body, the same should be allowed to function for the benefit of the villagers concerned in accordance with law. 7. Mr. Samuel Vanlalhriata Chhangte, learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the State respondents submits at the outset that the respondent No. 3, District Local Administration Officer, Local Administration Department, Aizawl District, Aizawl by a letter vide Memo No. B-12018/263/2017-DLAO(A), dated 20.09.2017, has sought permission from the Under Secretary, Local Administration Department, Govt. of Mizoram to hand over the Village Council charge to the suspended Vaitin Village Council as the suspension order will expire on 23.09.2017. The respondents in their affidavit-in-opposition averred and Mr. Samuel Vanlalhriata Chhangte, learned Govt. Advocate appearing on their behalf submits that copy of the judgment & order, dated 03.10.2016, passed by the Local Body Ombudsman was furnished to the petitioner No. 1, the President of Vaitin Village Council, vide letter No. F.14019/A-3/2016-OMB, dt. 3.10.2016. 8. Mr. Samuel Vanlalhriata Chhangte, learned Govt. Advocate, further submits that the allegation to the effect that the Vaitin Village Council has been in possession of 2 separate seals is evident from the fact that they used 1 seal before the Joint Director, ICAR and used another seal at the time of handing over the charge to Sh. 3.10.2016. 8. Mr. Samuel Vanlalhriata Chhangte, learned Govt. Advocate, further submits that the allegation to the effect that the Vaitin Village Council has been in possession of 2 separate seals is evident from the fact that they used 1 seal before the Joint Director, ICAR and used another seal at the time of handing over the charge to Sh. K. Lalchhanliana and that the size of the seals were different with different measurements, which is in contravention of the relevant rules. It has been further submitted that although the petitioners were elected in the Bye-Election held on 19.05.2016, the petitioner No. 1 submitted the application to the Joint Director of ICAR, Kolasib requesting him for organizing a training and demonstration, on 15.05.2016 i.e. 4 days before formation of the Village Council, which amounts to forgery and accordingly, the Ombudsman, Local Body, recommended for suspension of the Village Council for a period of not less than 3 (three) months, which was in accordance with Section 18 of the Ombudsman Act. 9. At the very outset, it is to be mentioned that in the bye-election to the Village Council of MZ-VC 01/91, Vaitin, held on 19.05.2016, the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2, among others, returned duly elected to the said council, vide Annexure-1 and accordingly, they started functioning with effect from 01.06.2016. It is also noticed that after taking over charge of Office, the petitioner No. 1 as President of Village Council, Vaitin wrote a letter which was through inadvertence, dated 15.5.2016 instead of 15.6.2016, addressed to the Joint Director, ICAR, Kolasib, Mizoram for arranging a training on scientific rearing of pig and poultry and also a demonstration thereof for the benefit of the farmers of the village vide Annexure-2. The aforesaid mistaken date given under his initial/signature was corrected by issuing a subsequent letter, dated 13.8.16, by way of corrigendum. However, in the meantime, a complaint was lodged by 2 (two) persons, namely, (1) Pu Rintluanga and (2) Pu Lianzuala alleging that 2 (two) VCP seals of different sizes were used by the said Village Council and that the said letter addressed to the Joint Director, ICAR, Kolasib was issued by the petitioner No. 1, before he assumed charge of Office of the President of the Village Council, Vaitin. The said complaint was referred to the Ombudsman Local Body at Sikulpuikawn, Aizawl, created as per the Mizoram (Establishment of Independent Local Body) Ombudsman Act, 2011 and after due hearing of the parties and consultation with a Scientist from NIC held- "since the possession of two seals by one V/C is against the Rules (vide DLAO, Aizawl letter No. B. 12015/263/97-DLAO(A) dt. 9.9.2016) the President, Village Council Vaitin is instructed to submit the seal with the smaller font size to the DLAO, Aizawl District immediately. The DLAO Aizawl shall look into the matter at the earliest." 10. The above finding of the Local Body Ombudsman reveals that no recommendation for suspension of the Village Council for a period of not less than 3 (three) months in accordance with Section 14 of the Ombudsman Act was made as averred in the affidavit-in-opposition. 11. Section 18 of the Mizoram (Establishment of Independent Local Body) Ombudsman Act, 2011 says that in case of complaints and grievances regarding corruption and maladministration against the Village Councils in general and its elected functionaries, the Ombudsman shall send its report to the Governor. However, the aforesaid report of the Ombudsman was not forwarded to the Governor. 12. Inspite of the above legal position and finding of the Local Body Ombudsman, the petitioner No. 1 was served with a show cause notice under Section 25(1) of the LHD (V/C) Act, 1953 to explain the reason for so use of seals, which was duly replied by the petitioner vide Annexure-7. However, the respondent No. 2, the Secretary to the Government of Mizoram, Local Administration Department (LAD), Aizawl, issued the impugned Notification, dated 23.06.2017, whereby Vaitin Village Council has been placed under suspension for 3 (three) months from the day the notice was served upon them for illegally obtaining 2 seals under Section 25(1) of the LHD (V/C) Act, 1953. Section 25(1) of the LHD (V/C) Act, 1953 reads as follows : "25. (1).The Executive Committee may, by public notification, order the dissolution of a Village Council if, in its opinion, the Village Council is too inefficient or is not able to carry on the village administration or is acting in the manner prejudicial to the interest of the State or for any other reasons considered sufficient for such dissolution, and issue orders for holding a fresh election of the Village Council. Copies of such orders shall also be sent to the Deputy Commissioner of the District." 13. The above Section 25(1) of the Act speaks of dissolution of the Village Council and holding of fresh election to the Council in case of utter inefficiency resulting in breakdown of administration. It does not empower the State for suspension of a democratically elected Village Council or for any such interim decision to debar the Council from functioning for the benefit of the villagers within its jurisdiction. 14. It is also noticed that the aforesaid impugned Order of suspension is not containing any reference to the investigation/enquiry finding of the Local Body Ombudsman nor the aforesaid report was forwarded to the Governor of the State as per requirement of Section 18 of the said Act. It is transparent from the records that the impugned Notification, dated 23.06.2017, suspending the Vaitin Village Council for a period of 3 (three) months was not based on the findings of the Local Body Ombudsman as averred in the affidavit-in-opposition and as such, evidently, an arbitrary and whimsical action detrimental to public interest on the part of the State respondents. Therefore, in the interest of furthering the noble objects of the LHD (V/C) Act, 1953, which has been enacted pursuant to the mandate of the 6th Schedule to the Constitution of India, is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the Writ petition stands allowed and the impugned Notification vide Memo No. B.14017/91/2015-LAD/VC dated 23.06.2017 and letter No. B-12018/263/2017-DLAO (A) dated 28.06.2017 are hereby set aside and quashed.