JUDGMENT : Dinesh Maheshwari, J. The respective learned counsel having appeared for the contesting respondents and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the issues involved, while dispensing with the service of proforma party i.e., respondent No. 7, this matter has been heard finally at this stage itself. 2. The petitioner, said to be the Sordar of Shnat Raid Tynring, Khyriem Syiemship, East Khasi Hills District and Ri Bhoi District, Meghalaya, has filed this writ petition with his grievance against the order dated 25.04.2017 (Annexure-13), as issued by the Office of the Executive Committee, Khasi Hills Autonomous District Council, Shillong ("KHADC" for short) whereby, he has been directed to convene the Village Dorbar of Tynring village within ten days for the purpose for renewal of the members/officials while alleging that there had been no Village Dorbar for a very long time; and while observing that all the residents of Tynring village, both male and female who have attained 18 years of age and hold EPIC Card, would attend the Dorbar when convened. The impugned order is issued in Khasi language and as per the translated version (Annexure-13), its relevant contents are as under: "To, U sordar Shnong Tynring, Khyrim Syiemship. Subject: Matters relating to Tynring Village. Sordar, After receiving notice that there has been no Village Dorbar for a very long time, by this I have been instructed to inform you to hold a village Dorbar of Tynring village within ten days from the date of this order for the renewal of the members/officials of the Village. The people who will attend in the Dorbar will include all the residents of Tynring village both male and female who have attained 18 years of age and who has an Epic Card. You are therefore to notify the date and time of the said Dorbar and also to inform this office five days prior to the date fixed so that necessary action can be taken." 3. The petitioner submits that earlier, he was placed under suspension when certain complaints were made against him but, after the report of enquiry, the Executive Committee, KHADC reinstated him on 14.12.2015 with directions to convene the Dorbar in accordance with the prevailing customs of Shnat Raid Tynring. The petitioner submits that earlier, he was placed under suspension when certain complaints were made against him but, after the report of enquiry, the Executive Committee, KHADC reinstated him on 14.12.2015 with directions to convene the Dorbar in accordance with the prevailing customs of Shnat Raid Tynring. The petitioner further submits that the respondent No. 6 has been making accusations against him and even filed a writ petition bearing No. 28 of 2016 in this Court questioning the said report of enquiry and his reinstatement, but the said writ petition was disposed of as withdrawn on 20.10.2016. 4. The case of the petitioner is that pursuant to the directions of the Executive Committee, he convened the Dorbar on 18.12.2015 and therein, he was again elected as Sordar and the other members of the Executive Committee were also elected; and, upon his election as Sordar, the Syiem of Khyrim was pleased to issue Sanad in his favour for a term of three years (Annexure-11). The petitioner submits that despite himself having been duly elected as Sordar and the Sanad having been issued by the Syiem of Khyrim in his favour, the Joint Secretary to the Executive Committee, KHADC has strangely issued the impugned order dated 25.04.2017 on baseless grounds and without considering the fact that the Dorbar was indeed convened wherein he was duly elected as Sordar and thereafter meetings of the Dorbar were also convened from time to time. 5. The learned Senior Counsel Shri HS Thangkhiew appearing for the official respondents has defended the order impugned with the submissions that substantial number of complaints were received by KHADC on the activities of the petitioner and on the allegations that the Dorbar of Tynring village was not duly convened; and hence, a decision was duly taken by the Executive Committee of KHADC for due convening of Dorbar and appropriate election of the Sordar and other members with participation of the eligible villagers. 6. Though several other submissions are also sought to be made by the parties against each other but it does not appear necessary to enter into any such dispute for the reason that in the present matter, the only aspect requiring consideration is as to whether the respondents related with KHADC have acted in accordance with law while issuing the impugned order dated 25.04.2017; and if not, as to what should to be the proper course of proceedings? 7. During the course of submissions, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the official respondents was queried if any show cause notice was extended to the petitioner before issuance of the impugned order dated 25.04.2017? The learned counsel could not answer in the affirmative but submitted that action has been taken having due regard to the requirements of proper composition of the Village Dorbar and in view of multiple complaints received against the petitioner. Learned counsel also pointed out that before filing this writ petition, the petitioner made a representation on 02.05.2017 to the Executive Member In-charge, Elaka, KHADC seeking revocation of the order dated 25.04.2017 while stating his reasons but before any decision could be taken thereupon, he chose to approach this Court by way of the instant petition. 8. It is noticed that the facts relating to the aforesaid representation dated 02.05.2017 are not stated in the petition and the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner is also not in a position to explain as to why this fact has not been stated in the petition filed on 04.05.2017. Be that as it may, on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, this shortcoming on the part of the petitioner is not considered fatal to this petition, particularly when it is noticed that before issuing the order impugned, no opportunity of explanation was extended to him. 9. In an overall comprehension of the matter, it is clear that on the earlier occasion, by the order dated 14.12.2016, the respondent - KHADC indeed reinstated the petitioner. The petitioner asserts that thereafter, Village Dorbar was duly convened and therein he was re-elected as Sordar and other members were also elected; and, after his election, a Sanad was also issued in his favour by the Syiem of Khyrim. 10. In the totality of the circumstances of this case, this Court is clearly of the view that if at all complaints were received and there were justified reasons with the Executive Committee of KHADC for proposing/taking any action against the petitioner, it was the minimum requirement of the basic principles of natural justice that the petitioner, said to be holding the position of Sordar Shnat Raid Tynring, was put to notice on such complaint/s and was permitted to submit his response/explanation thereto; and his submissions were taken into consideration before taking any decision in the matter and issuing any mandate. It appears, however, that without due regard to the basic requirements of principles of natural justice, the Executive Committee of KHADC has taken a snap decision as reflected in the impugned order dated 25.04.2017. Such a decision, standing in conflict with the basic principles of natural justice, cannot be approved. 11. Even when the course as adopted by the Executive Committee leading to the impugned letter dated 25.04.2017 is not approved for want of proper opportunity of explanation to the petitioner, it cannot be said that the petitioner is altogether absolved of his answerability under the United Khasi-Jaintia Hills Autonomous District (Appointment and Succession of Chiefs and Headmen) Act, 1959 and the rules made there under. However, the petitioner is said to have already made a representation dated 02.05.2017 to the Executive Member Incharge Elaka KHADC, Shillong. 12. In view of the above, it appears appropriate that while keeping the impugned order dated 25.04.2017 in abeyance, the official respondents be permitted to take appropriate decision in the matter after providing adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 13. Accordingly, this writ petition stands partly allowed at this stage itself to the extent and in the manner that the impugned order dated 25.04.2017 is kept in abeyance, but the respondents No.1 to 5 are allowed to take appropriate decision on the representation made by the petitioner after providing him an adequate opportunity of hearing. 14. In the interest of justice, it is also provided that in case necessary, it shall be permissible for the Executive Committee, KHADC or its authorised members to further serve a show cause notice on the petitioner on the issues requiring his response/explanation within a week from today. After being served with such notice, it shall be required of the petitioner to submit his show cause within a week thereof. After taking into consideration the representation of the petitioner as also his response/explanation, if any, the Executive Committee by itself or through its authorised members shall take appropriate decision in the matter and follow up action shall be taken in accordance with law. 15. With the observations and requirements foregoing, this petition stands disposed of.