Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1134 (GAU)

H. Lalramdinhluna v. State Of Mizoram

2019-10-18

MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA

body2019
JUDGMENT : Michael Zothankhuma, J. Heard, Mr. A.R Malhotra, the learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. C. Zoramchhana, learned Addl. Advocate General appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 & 2. Mr. B. Lalramenga, the learned counsel appears for respondent No. 3. 2. This is a writ petition filed by 3 (three) nominated Members of Lai Autonomous District Council (LADC, challenging the Letter dated 03.04.2007, issued by the Under Secretary to the Government of Mizoram, District Council & Minority Affairs Department vide Memo No. C.11018/1/99-DCA, addressed to the Secretary to the Lai Autonomous District Council, Lawngtlai and the Notification dated 07.08.2019 issued by the Secretary to the Govt. of Mizoram, District Council & Minority Affairs Department, which states that the nominated Members of the Lai Autonomous District Council shall not have any voting rights in any No-confidence Motion or Confidence Motion or Election in respect of Chief Executive Member of the Lai Autonomous District Council. 3. Before taking up the issue in hand, a few facts may be reflected to help in deciding the subject matter in issue. This matter pertains to the Lai Autonomous District Council (LADC in short), in the State of Mizoram, which has been constituted under Para 2 of the 6th Schedule to the Constitution and the Lai Autonomous District Council (Constitution, Conduct of Business, Etc) Rules, 2010, which has been made under Para 2(7) of the 6th Schedule. It specifically pertains to whether nominated members of the LADC can have any voting right in the No-confidence Motion moved/tabled against the Chief Executive Member (CEM for short) or the Executive Committee (EC for short) of the Lai Autonomous District Council, hereinafter referred to as the "LADC", which is in the State of Mizoram. In pursuance to the election held for being a member of the LADC, out of the 25 seats for elected members, the following seats were bagged by the following parties: (1) Congress 16 (2) MNF 8 (3) Independent 1 4. Though the Lai Autonomous District Council (Constitution, Conduct of Business etc) Rules 2010, and its amendments, hereinafter referred to as "2010 Rules," has provided for the appointment of 4 (four) nominated members of the LADC, only 3 (three) nominated members were appointed to the LADC on 12.02.2016. 5. Though the Lai Autonomous District Council (Constitution, Conduct of Business etc) Rules 2010, and its amendments, hereinafter referred to as "2010 Rules," has provided for the appointment of 4 (four) nominated members of the LADC, only 3 (three) nominated members were appointed to the LADC on 12.02.2016. 5. As the Congress had the largest number of elected members in the LADC, they being the largest legislature party in the LADC, they formed the Executive Committee in the LADC along with the support of the lone Independent member, as per Rule 21(2) of the 2010 Rules. The Chief Executive Member was also elected from amongst the elected members of the Congress Legislature party and appointed by the Governor under Rule 21 of the Lai Autonomous District Council (Constitution, Conduct of Business, etc) Rules 2010. However, due to a change in circumstances, wherein a certain number of members of the Congress Legislature party and the lone Independent Member of the LADC, who had initially supported the Congress Legislature party, had shifted their allegiance, by purportedly forming a new legislature party, the question of whether the Congress Legislature party would still remain the largest legislature party in the LADC and whether the members of the LADC, who had formed the new legislature party would be subject to disqualification under Rule 11 of Lai Autonomous District Council (Constitution, Conduct of Business etc) (Second Amendment) Rules, 2010 arose. Cases have been filed by various members of the LADC against each other due to the fluid political situation that arose in the LADC. This Court need not go into those issues stated above and will confine itself only to the issue raised in this writ petition, i.e. "whether the nominated members of the LADC can have any right to vote in a No-confidence Motion moved/tabled against the Chief Executive Member or the Executive Committee," keeping in view the "2010 Rules." 6. Before going into the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties and to enable this Court to come to a decision, this Court is of the view that the relevant provisions of the 2010 Rules, which are being pressed into play by the parties and those that need to be considered by this Court should be reproduced. Rule 2 (B), 2(K), 2(N), 2(O), 6, 21, 23, 24, 36(1) and 37 are accordingly reproduced below:- "2. Rule 2 (B), 2(K), 2(N), 2(O), 6, 21, 23, 24, 36(1) and 37 are accordingly reproduced below:- "2. In these rules, unless the context otherwise requires:- (b) "Chief Executive Member" means a leader of the house of the District Council elected by majority members of the District Council. (k) "Executive Committee" means the Executive Committee of the District Council of the Lai Autonomous District, as formed under these Rules. (n) "Lai Autonomous District" means an area deemed as such under paragraph 2, paragraph 20 and 20 B of the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution of India. (o) "Member" means member of the District Council of Lai Autonomous District. 6 (1) The District Council shall consist of such number of members chosen by direct election from territorial constituencies in the Autonomous District and also nominated as specified in sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 2 of the Sixth Schedule. (2) The composition of the District Council and the allocation of seats therein as between elected and nominated members shall be such as the Governor may, by notification in the official Gazette, determine from time to time. (3) The constituencies for election to the District Council shall be territorial while the constituencies, respective extent thereof and the number of seats to be filled from such constituencies shall be such as may be determined by the Governor in the manner hereinafter prescribed. (4) The members to be nominated by the Governor under these Rules subject to the provisions contained in sub paragraph (1) of paragraph 2 of the Sixth Schedule shall be recommended by the Chief Executive Member from amongst the persons having requisite qualification for being a member of the District Council. (5) Not less than two of the total number of Nominated Members of the Council shall be women. 21 (1) There shall be an Executive Committee of the District Council with a Chief Executive Member at the head, and nine other members of the Executive Committee to exercise the functions hereinafter specified. (2) The Executive Committee shall be formed by the largest legislature party having an absolute majority of elected members in the District Council. (3) The Chairman or the Deputy Chairman shall not be eligible to hold office either as Chief Executive Member or as a member of the Executive Committee of the District Council. (2) The Executive Committee shall be formed by the largest legislature party having an absolute majority of elected members in the District Council. (3) The Chairman or the Deputy Chairman shall not be eligible to hold office either as Chief Executive Member or as a member of the Executive Committee of the District Council. (4) Subject to sub-rule (2) and (3), the Chief Executive Member shall be appointed by the Governor, while other members of the Executive Committee shall be appointed by the Governor on the recommendation or recommendations of the Chief Executive Member. Provided that a Member of the Executive Committee shall hold office at the pleasure of the Governor and may be removed by him on the advice of the Chief Executive Member; Provided further that the Governor may appoint a new Executive Member to fill up the vacancy subject to the condition that a removed member shall not be re-appointed. (5) The Governor may, if he considers necessary, cause the District Council to take up, or direct the Chief Executive Member to secure, a vote of confidence in favour of the Executive Committee within thirty days of the formation of the Executive Committee or of appointment of the Chief Executive Member, as the case may be. (6) There shall be a Secretary to the Executive Committee, who shall be designated as the Executive Secretary and such other Deputy Secretaries and Under Secretaries as may be determined by the Executive Committee. Provided that notwithstanding anything contained in these Rules, the Governor may, for the sake of better administration of the Lai Autonomous District and in consultation with the Chief Executive Member, depute any officer of the State, not below the rank of Additional Secretary of the State Government to the District Council as Principal Secretary. Provided that notwithstanding anything contained in these Rules, the Governor may, for the sake of better administration of the Lai Autonomous District and in consultation with the Chief Executive Member, depute any officer of the State, not below the rank of Additional Secretary of the State Government to the District Council as Principal Secretary. 23 (1) A member holding office as Chief Executive Member or member of the Executive Committee- (a) shall vacate his office if he ceases to be a member of the District Council, subject to the proviso to sub-rule (2) (b) may, at any time by writing under his hand, submit his resignation, if such member is the Chief Executive Member, to the Governor through the Chairman who shall forward such resignation within 48 hours from the time of receipt of the same, and if such member is a member of the Executive Committee, to the Chief Executive Member who shall forward with recommendation, if any, such resignation to the Governor within 48 hours. On his resignation being accepted by the Governor, the Chief Executive Member, as the case may be, such Executive Member shall be deemed to have vacated the office as such. (2) When the Chief executive Member vacates or resigns his office under sub-rule (1), the other Members of the Executive Committee shall also cease to hold office as such and a new Executive Committee shall be constituted in accordance with provisions of rules 21 and 22; Provided that until a new Chief Executive Member is elected and the Executive Committee reconstituted, the Governor may, notwithstanding anything contained in these rules, authorize any one member or more than one member of the District Council to carry on the duties of the Executive Committee, or may make such other arrangements, as he may think proper for carrying on the executive functions of the District Council. 24 (1) The Executive Committee shall be collectively responsible to the District Council and may be removed on a vote of no confidence passed by a majority of the Members of the District Council present at a meeting specially convened for the purpose under rule 83. (2) In case of removal of the Executive Committee the Chairman shall forthwith submit a report to the Governor and cause election of a new Chief Executive Member within 48 hours of removal. (2) In case of removal of the Executive Committee the Chairman shall forthwith submit a report to the Governor and cause election of a new Chief Executive Member within 48 hours of removal. (3) In case of failure of election within 48 hours the Governor shall assume the powers and functions of the Executive Committee. 36 (1) Every member of the District Council as soon as constituted after the General Elections, shall, before the Protem Chairman appointed in that behalf by the Governor subscribe an oath or affirmation according to the form set out for the purpose in the Appendix-III. 37 (1) Save as otherwise provided in these Rules, all questions at any sitting of the District Council shall be determined by a majority of votes of the members present. (2) The Chairman or the person acting as such shall not vote in the first instance, but shall have and exercise a casting vote in the case of an equality of votes." 7. Mr. A.R Malhotra, the learned counsel for the petitioners, at the outset submits that the Apex Court in the case of K. Lakshminarayanan vs. Union of India & Anr., Civil Appeal No. 11887/2018, which was disposed of 06.12.2018, has held that both the elected and nominated persons are a part of the Puducherry Legislative Assembly and that Section 12(1) of the Government of Union Territories Act, 1963, hereinafter referred to as the "1963 Act," was interpreted to mean that all members of the Puducherry Legislative Assembly, including the nominated members, were entitled to vote in the sitting of the Legislative Assembly in matters of budget and in respect of a No-confidence Motion. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the words used in Section 12(1) & (2) of the 1963 Act are similar to Rule 37 (1) & (2) of the 2010 Rules. He accordingly submits that the nominated members of the LADC cannot be excluded from casting their vote in a No-confidence Motion against the CEM or the Executive Committee. 8. Mr. He accordingly submits that the nominated members of the LADC cannot be excluded from casting their vote in a No-confidence Motion against the CEM or the Executive Committee. 8. Mr. A.R. Malhotra, learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that in the case of Tuliram Ranghang & Others v. Joyram Englan & Others, (2013) 5 GauLT 494 , the Division Bench of this Court had held that nominated members of the Karbi Anglong Autonomous District Council (KAAC) were also a part of the composition of the District Council, while counting the total strength of the District Council and as such, the nominated members had voting rights in matters relating to a No Confidence Motion for removal of the Chief Executive Member (CEM). The only exception being that salaried nominated members of the KAAC were excluded from having voting rights in a No Confidence Motion against the CEM, while the non-salaried nominated members had voting rights. 9. Mr. A.R Malhotra submits that the definition of member of the LADC, as provided in Rule 2(O) and Rule 6(1) of the 2010 Rules, includes both nominated and elected members and that the oath taken by the elected and nominated members are exactly the same. That a careful reading of Rule 24(1) and 36(1) of the 2010 Rules does not debar the nominated members from participating and voting in a No-confidence Motion against the CEM. He also submits that if it was the intention of the makers of the 2010 Rules to bar the nominated members from having voting rights in the No-confidence Motion to be tabled against a CEM/Executive Committee, it would have been mentioned in the 2010 Rules. As there was no express bar for the nominated members to participate in a No- confidence Motion, the impugned Letter dated 27.06.2019 and the impugned Notification dated 07.08.2019 should be set aside and the petitioners should be allowed to participate in any No-confidence Motion to be tabled/moved against the CEM/EC in the LADC. As there was no express bar for the nominated members to participate in a No- confidence Motion, the impugned Letter dated 27.06.2019 and the impugned Notification dated 07.08.2019 should be set aside and the petitioners should be allowed to participate in any No-confidence Motion to be tabled/moved against the CEM/EC in the LADC. He also submits that the case of Miehlo Manasia vs. State of Mizoram & Ors., (2007) 1 GauLT 1007 and the Division Bench Judgment in Miehlo Manasia vs. State of Mizoram & Ors., (2007) 1 GauLT 1007 will not be applicable to the case in hand, as the above judgments were given in connection with the Mara Autonomous District Council (MADC) and the MADC (Constitution, Conduct and Business etc) Rules 2002, hereinafter referred to as a 2002 Rules, while the issue herein pertains to the LADC and the 2010 Rules. 10. Mr. B. Lalramenga, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 submits that a reading of para 2 of the 6th Schedule of the Constitution and Rule 6 of the 2010 Rules clearly show that the District Council shall consist of members chosen by direct election and nominated members. He submits that he has no further comments to make as the respondent No.3 has not filed any affidavit in this case. 11. Mr. C. Zoramchhana, learned Addl. Advocate General, appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 submits that the judgment of the Apex Court cited by the petitioners counsel i.e K. Lakshminarayanan vs. Union of India & Anr., Civil Appeal No. 11887/2018 is not applicable to the facts of this case. He submits that the present case is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court passed in Miehlo Manasia vs. State of Mizoram & Ors., (2007) 1 GauLT 1007 , which has been upheld by the Division Bench in Miehlo Manasia vs. State of Mizoram & Ors, (2007) 1 GauLT 1007 . Thereafter, the appeal filed against the judgments in Miehlo Manasia vs. State of Mizoram & Ors., (supra) had been dismissed by the Supreme Court in SLP No. 2345/2007, vide Order dated 25.02.2007. Thereafter, the appeal filed against the judgments in Miehlo Manasia vs. State of Mizoram & Ors., (supra) had been dismissed by the Supreme Court in SLP No. 2345/2007, vide Order dated 25.02.2007. He accordingly submits that though this Court in Miehlo Manasia vs. State of Mizoram & Ors (supra) had held that nominated members could not participate in a No- Confidence Motion in the MADC under the 2002 Rules, the said judgment squarely covers the case in hand, as the provisions of the 2002 Rules are similar to the 2010 Rules being applied in the LADC. 12. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties. 13. In the case of K. Lakshminarayanan vs. Union of India & Anr, Civil Appeal No. 11887/2018, the question arose as to whether the nominated members of the Puducherry Legislative Assembly could be nominated by the Central Government without concurrence of the Government of Union Territory of Puducherry. Though the main issue was with regard to the above, the Apex Court also framed an issue, which is to the following effect, "Whether the nominated members in the Legislative Assembly shall have no voting right in two matters i.e. (1) Budget, (2) No-confidence Motion against the Government" Section 12 of The Government of Union Territories Act, 1963 states as follows:- "12. Voting in Assembly, power of Assembly to act notwithstanding vacancies and quorum. (1) Save as otherwise provided in this Act, all questions at any sitting of the Legislative Assembly of the Union territory shall be determined by a majority of votes of the members present and voting other than the Speaker or person acting as such. (2) The Speaker or person acting as such shall not vote in the first instance but shall have and exercise a casting vote in the case of an equality of votes." 14. The Apex Court, in the above case of K. Lakshminarayanan vs. Union of India & Anr., considered the fact that under Article 239A of the Constitution, Parliament had enacted the Government of Union Territories Act, 1963, wherein the total number of seats in the Legislative Assembly of the Union Territory of Puducherry, to be filled by persons chosen by direct election shall be thirty and the Central Government may nominate not more than three persons, to be members of the Legislative Assembly of the Union territory. The Apex Court also considered the fact that the composition of the Legislative Assembly consisted of both elected and nominated persons and that Section 11 provided that every member of the Puducherry Legislative Assembly, before taking his seat, make and subscribe an oath or affirmation according to the form set out for the purpose in the 1 st Schedule. It also considered the fact that Section 12(1) of the Government of Union Territories Act, 1963, provided that all questions at any sitting of the Legislative Assembly of the Union territory shall be determined by a majority of votes of the members present and voting other than the Speaker or person acting as such. The Apex Court thus held that when the expression used is votes of the members present, the votes of the elected and nominated members of the Assembly have to be counted and there was no exclusion of nominated members with regard to voting rights in respect of "all questions" at any sitting of the Legislative Assembly, except in respect of the Speaker or person acting as Speaker, as provided in Section 12(2). It thus held that all members including the nominated members are entitled to vote in matters of budget and No-confidence Motion in the sitting of the Puducherry Legislative Assembly. 15. In the case of Tuliram Ranghang & Others v. Joyram Englan & Others (supra), the Division Bench of this Court, after considering Rule 2(15), Rule 17, Rule 25- 27 of the Assam Autonomous District (Constitution of District Council) Rules, 1951, has held that it was only a salaried nominated member of the District Council, who alone were excluded from voting rights, but not the other nominated members. The operative portion of the judgment of the Division Bench, in the above case, at para 16, 17 & 18 is reproduced below:- "16. Since the relevant facts will have to be tested in reference to the rules, there is no escape from making a reference to the relevant rules. As noted above, it is the Assam Autonomous District (Constitution of District Councils) Rules, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as "the rules") is the rules holding the field. As per Rule 2 (15) "Member" means a member of the District Council. As noted above, it is the Assam Autonomous District (Constitution of District Councils) Rules, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as "the rules") is the rules holding the field. As per Rule 2 (15) "Member" means a member of the District Council. This definition of member will have to be read in reference to Rule 25 inasmuch as a question has been raised as to whether nominated members have any voting right. Rule 25 provides that save as otherwise provided in the Constitution and in the rules, all questions at any sitting of a District Council shall be determined by a majority of votes of the members present and voting, other than the Chairman, or person acting as such. The Chairman or person acting as such shall not vote in the first instance, but shall have and exercise a casting vote in the case of an equality of votes. 17. If we refer to the aforesaid provisions, there is no distinction between elected members and nominated members of the council. On the other hand, prescribing the quorum under Rule 27 of the rules, it has been provided that the quorum to constitute a meeting of the District Council shall be six members of one-third of the total number of members of such council, whichever is greater. Dealing with disqualification for membership under Rule 17 of the rules, it has been provided that a salaried servant of the Government of India or Government of any State specified in the First Schedule to the Constitution or an employee of District Council or of a Regional Council shall be disqualified for being elected as, and for being, a member of the District Council of an autonomous council. Rule 17 (3) makes an exception to the same by providing that the Governor is empowered to nominate a person as member of the council, although, he is a salaried servant. However, he is not entitled to vote on any matter during the proceedings of the council." 18. From the above, it is absolutely clear that it is only the salaried nominated members, who alone are excluded from voting right, but not the other nominated members. It is not the case of the writ petitioner that the 4 nominated members are the salaried servants of any authority. In any case, while counting the total strength of the council all the members will have to be accounted for. It is not the case of the writ petitioner that the 4 nominated members are the salaried servants of any authority. In any case, while counting the total strength of the council all the members will have to be accounted for. Nominated members are part of the composition of the council. In the instant case, 2/3rd of the members (20 out of 20) brought the no confidence motion against the writ petitioner and requested the Chariman to convene a special session of the council." 16. A perusal of the judgment of the Division Bench in Tuliram Ranghang & Others v. Joyram Englan & Others (supra) shows that there was no bar expressed in the 1951 Rules, for a nominated member to vote on "any matter" during the proceedings of the council, except for a salaried nominated member. In the above case, this Court has held that Rule 17 of the 1951 Rules disqualified a salaried servant of the Government of India, State Government, District Council or a Regional Council from being elected and for being a member of the District Council, except by way of nomination by the Governor under Rule 17 (3) of the 1951 Rules. The salaried nominated member would however not be entitled to vote, "on any matter" during the proceedings of the council as per Rule 17 of the Assam Autonomous District (Constitution of District Council) Rules, 1951. 17. A perusal of the above 2 judgments relied upon by the petitioners clearly shows that there was no bar for a nominated member, from voting on "any matter" during the proceedings of the Legislative Assembly/Council, due to concerned Act/Rules providing that all questions at any sitting of the Legislative Assembly/Council would be determined by a majority of the members present and voting. Thus, the expression "member present" included nominated members. 18. In the present case, Rule 37(1) of the 2010 Rules also provides that all questions at any sitting of the District Council shall be determined by a majority of votes of the members present, except for the Chairman or the person acting as such, as per Rule 37(2). Rule 2(o) defines members to mean a member to the LADC members and there is no exclusion of nominated members from being a member of the LADC. Rule 2(o) defines members to mean a member to the LADC members and there is no exclusion of nominated members from being a member of the LADC. As such, keeping in view the above judgments in Tuliram Ranghang & Others v. Joyram Englan & Others (supra) and K. Lakshminarayanan vs. Union of India & Anr (supra), there does not appear to be any distinguishing factor in respect of the voting rights of a nominated member of the LADC vis- -vis elected members of the LADC. 19. The above being said, the first question that has to be seen is whether the fact situation in the present case is similar to the fact situation in the two cases cited by the petitioners' counsel, as it is settled law that a decision is only an authority for what it decides and not what logically follows from it. A little difference in facts changes the precedential value of a decision. In the case of Bharat Petroleum Corpn. Ltd v. N.R. Vairamani, (2004) 8 SCC 579 , the Apex Court has held that courts should not place reliance on decisions without discussing as to how the factual situation fits in with the fact situation of the decision on which reliance is placed. It was further observed that the judgments of courts are not to be construed as statutes and the observations must be read in the context in which they appear to have been stated. The Court went on to say that circumstantial applicability, one additional or different fact may make a world of difference between conclusions in two cases. 20. In the present case, Rule 2 (o) of the 2010 Rules defines member as member of the District Council of LADC. The definition of member encompasses within it elected and nominated members. Rule 6(1) of the 2010 Rules provides that the constitution of the members of the LADC includes elected and nominated members. Rule 37 (1) of the 2010 Rules also states that all questions at any sitting of the District Council shall be determined by a majority of votes of the members present. The oath taken by the elected members and the nominated members are also the same. Rule 37 (1) of the 2010 Rules also states that all questions at any sitting of the District Council shall be determined by a majority of votes of the members present. The oath taken by the elected members and the nominated members are also the same. Thus, on considering only the above provisions of the 2010 Rules, it appears that the voting rights of the nominated members would be the same as that of elected members, as there is no express bar for the nominated members to vote in a no confidence motion in the 2010 Rules. However, Rule 21(2) of the 2010 Rules provides that the Executive Committee shall be formed by the largest legislature party having an absolute majority of elected members in the District Council. Thus, only the elected members of the District Council can determine the formation of the Executive Committee of the LADC. Under Rule 21(2) of the 2010 Rules, the nominated members have no role to play in the formation of the Executive Committee of the LADC. 21. Rule 21(1) of the 2010 Rules provides that there shall be an Executive Committee of the District Council with a CEM at the head. The fact that the Chief Executive Member of the LADC is to be an elected member of the District Council is clear from Rule 6 read with Rule 21(2), 21(4) and Rule 2(b) of the 2010 Rules. Rule 6 (4) specifically states that the members to be nominated by the Governor shall be recommended by the Chief Executive Member. This clearly shows that nominated members cannot be the Chief Executive Member of a District Council, as prior to the election of the CEM, nominated members cannot exist. Rule 24(1) of the 2010 Rules provides that the Executive Committee shall be collectively responsible to the District Council and may be removed on a vote of no confidence, passed by a majority of the members of the District Council, at a meeting specially convened for the purpose under Rule 83. Rule 83 is the procedure to be followed for a motion of no confidence, to be tabled before the District Council. Rule 83 is the procedure to be followed for a motion of no confidence, to be tabled before the District Council. The question that thus arises is whether the nominated members, who have no role to play in the formation of the Executive Committee under Rule 21(2) or the election of the CEM under the 2010 Rules can have any role to play in the dissolution/removal of the Executive Committee/CEM. 22. This Court in a somewhat similar case has held that nominated members of the Mara Autonomous District Council (in short MADC), in the State of Mizoram, are not entitled to vote in relation to a vote of confidence to be secured by the Chief Executive Member of the District Council. The decision of this Court was made in the case of Miehlo Manasia vs. State of Mizoram & Ors., (2007) 1 GauLT 1007 and was upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in Miehlo Manasia vs. State of Mizoram & Ors., (2007) 1 GauLT 1007 . Further, the SLP No. 2345/2007, filed against the judgment of this Court in Miehlo Manasia vs. State of Mizoram & Ors., (supra), was dismissed by the Apex Court vide Order dated 25.02.2007. 23. In the case of Miehlo Manasia vs. State of Mizoram & Ors. (supra), the issue was whether nominated members of the MADC were entitled to vote in relation to a vote of confidence to be secured by the Chief Executive Member of the District Council. This Court noted the fact that Rule 22 of the 2002 Rules provided that the Executive Committee shall be formed by the largest legislature party, having a majority of elected members in the District Council and the leader elected by such legislature party shall be appointed as Chief Executive Member (CEM). 24. The Single Bench of this Court in the above case of Meihlo Manasia (supra) thus held in para 30 & 31 as follows:- "30. As noticed above, the legislature party of MNF consists of 10 members, whereas the legislature party of ULP (MDF and INC) consists of 11 members. As per the requirement of rule 22 (2), the largest legislature party having a majority of elected members in the District Council shall form the Executive Committee and the leader elected by such legislature party shall be the CEM. As per the requirement of rule 22 (2), the largest legislature party having a majority of elected members in the District Council shall form the Executive Committee and the leader elected by such legislature party shall be the CEM. Thus, unless the present CEM gains the support of the 4 nominated members alongwith the 10 MNF elected members, it cannot be said that he has a majority support in a House consisting of 26 (22 elected and 4 nominated) members. However, the whole controversy is as to whether the 4 nominated members can be included for the purpose. A plain reading of rule 22 (2) makes no room for doubt that it is the elected leader of the largest legislature party having a majority of elected members in the District Council shall be appointed as the CEM. Thus, in the matter of electing the CEM, the nominated members cannot have any say. It is only the elected members who hold the key towards electing the CEM. If that be so, can it be said that after withdrawal of support by the elected members of the ULP having 11 members, the CEM could continue as such with the support of the other group of elected members and the nominated members, which is admittedly not the majority party of elected members in terms of rule 2 (b) and 22(2). The answer is bound to be in the negative in view of the unambiguous and clear provisions of rule 22 (2). 31. Much has been emphasized on the definition member under rule 2 (o), it is true that member means member of the District Council. However, for the purpose of deciding the issue at hand, this definition of member will have to be understood in the context. It is in this connection, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 emphasized on the words appearing in rule 2 (definitions), under which definitions have been given. The words are "unless the context otherwise requires." Thus, according to him, the definition of member is not wholesome and unqualified. In the context of the other provisions of the rules, more particularly rule 22(2) it is only the elected members who can be called members for the purpose of voting in the vote of confidence. The words are "unless the context otherwise requires." Thus, according to him, the definition of member is not wholesome and unqualified. In the context of the other provisions of the rules, more particularly rule 22(2) it is only the elected members who can be called members for the purpose of voting in the vote of confidence. Otherwise, if the nominated members are also allowed to vote in the vote of confidence same will be antithesis to the express provisions of rule 22 (2) under which it is only the elected members forming the largest majority group who can elect the CEM." 25. Rule 22 (1), (2) and (3) of the Mara Autonomous District Council (Constitution, Conduct of Business, Etc.) Rules, 2002 states as follows:- "EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE 22. (1) There shall be an Executive Committee of the District Council with a Chief Executive Member at the head, and eight other members of the Executive Committee to exercise the functions hereinafter specified. (2) The Executive Committee shall be formed by the largest legislature party having a majority of elected members in the District Council. The leader elected by such legislature party shall be appointed as the Chief Executive Member: Provided that in case he is not an elected member, then unless such leader is elected as a member of the District Council within six months from the date of his appointment as such, he shall cease to be the Chief Executive Member and to continue as such. (3) Subject to sub-rule (2), the Chief Executive Member shall be appointed by the Governor, and other members of the Executive Committee shall be appointed by the Governor on the recommendation of the Chief Executive Member through the Secretary to the Government. The above Rule clearly shows that the Chief Executive Member has to be an elected member of the Mara Autonomous District Council and the Executive Committee has to be formed by the largest Legislature party having a majority of elected members in the District Council. 26. The Division Bench of this Court in Miehlo Manasia Vs. State of Mizoram & Ors. 26. The Division Bench of this Court in Miehlo Manasia Vs. State of Mizoram & Ors. (supra) thus held that a reading of the word "members" of the District Council as provided in Rule 2(o), read in conjunction with Rule 22 (2) of the 2002 Rules, showed that only the elected members could vote in the motion for vote of confidence or no confidence of a Chief Executive Member. Thus, the nominated members, who had no role to play in the formation of the Executive Committee or in the selection and appointment of the Chief Executive Member, could not have any role to play in a vote of confidence or no confidence tabled against the Chief Executive Member. The Division Bench of this Court in Miehlo Manasia Vs. State of Mizoram & Ors (supra) has held at para 9 as follows: "9. We have given our anxious considerations to the submissions made by the rival parties. It is seen from the provisions of the Rules that a nominated Member does not have a right to vote at the time of election of a Chief Executive Member nor he has a right to be a candidate to the post of Chief Executive Member. We have further noted that unlike the provisions made in case of nominated Members of the BTC, the provisions of the Constitution or the Rules applicable, do not specifically provide for a voting right to the nominated Members of MADC during the vote of confidence for the Chief Executive Member. We also find from perusal of the government records produced by the learned Advocate General for Mizoram that the impugned decision dated 28-11-2006 have been issued after elaborate exercise of consultation and discussion at various levels of the government. We also feel that democratic institutions like District Councils where majority of the Members are elected and only few are nominated would he better served by upholding the embargo placed on voting by nominated Members since any one can be nominated as a Member to the District Council and the power of nomination is capable of being misused to interfere with the process of democracy which is expected to prevail in the election of a Chief Executive Member or in a vote of confidence to be secured by such Chief Executive Member." 27. A perusal of the 2002 Rules, which is applicable for the Mara Autonomous District Council (MADC) shows that it is similar to the 2010 Rules, which is relevant for deciding the case in hand. Further, Rule 38 of the 2002 Rules, which is similar to Rule 37 of the 2010 Rules and Section 12(1) & (2) of the 1963 Act, states as follows: "38. (1) Save as otherwise provided in these Rules, all questions at any sitting of the District Council shall be determined by a majority of votes of the members present and voting, other than the Chairman, or person acting as such. (2) The Chairman or the person acting as such shall not vote in the first instance, but shall have and exercise a casting vote in the case of an equality of votes. 28. In the case of K. Lakshminarayanan (supra), the Apex Court held that Section 12 of the 1963 Act does not give any indication that nominated members have no right to vote on budget and a no confidence motion against the Government. If the intention of the Legislature was to exclude the votes of nominated members, the said expression would have been included in Sub-Rule 1 of Section 12 of the 1963 Act. 29. In the present case, a reading of Rule 21 of the 2010 Rules shows that the Executive Committee has to be formed by the largest Legislature party having an absolute majority of elected members in the District Council. Sub-Rule 4 of Rule 21 of the 2010 Rules shows that the Chief Executive Member and other members of the Executive Committee are to be elected members of the District Council. As nominated members do not have a role to play in the election of the CEM or the formation of the Executive Committee of the District Council as per Rule 21 of the 2010 Rules, this Court is of the view that the nominated members cannot have any right to take part in a vote of confidence or no confidence that may be taken up against the Chief Executive Member or the Executive Committee. This is due to the fact that the definition of "Member" as given in Rule 2(o) of 2010 Rules has to be read in the context of Rule 21(2) and 21(4) of the 2010 Rules. This is due to the fact that the definition of "Member" as given in Rule 2(o) of 2010 Rules has to be read in the context of Rule 21(2) and 21(4) of the 2010 Rules. Though Rule 37 of the 2010 Rules provides that all questions at any sitting of the District Council shall be determined by a majority of the members present and there is no express bar for the nominated member to take part in all the sittings/proceedings of the District Council and though there is no distinction between a nominated and elected member in the definition of "member" of the LADC as per Rule 2(o) of the 2010 Rules, Rule 37 of the 2010 Rules is not an absolute Rule and would have to be read in the context of the other provisions of the 2010 Rules, as Rule 37 starts with the words "Save as provided in these Rules." Thus, Rule 37 of the 2010 Rules has to read in conjunction with Rule 6, 21 and 24. 30. The provisions of the 2010 Rules do not provide for nominated members to have any role to play in the formation of the Executive Committee under Rule 21 and the appointment of the Chief Executive Member, which is made under Rule 21 (4) and which is subject to sub-Rule (2) & (3) of Rule 21. The above clearly shows that the nominated members do not have any right to vote at the time of formation of the Executive Committee or the election of the Chief Executive Member. Thus, when the nominated members do not have any role to play in the formation and appointment of the Executive Committee and the Chief Executive Member, they cannot be allowed to have any role to play in the dissolution /removal of the Executive Committee or the Chief Executive Member, in a no confidence motion or in a vote of confidence motion, as the same would be antithesis to the provision of Rule 6 and 21 of the 2010 Rules. Accordingly, the definition of "member" given in Rule 2 (o) of the 2010 Rules has to be understood in the context of Rule 6 and 21 of 2010 Rules. Accordingly, the definition of "member" given in Rule 2 (o) of the 2010 Rules has to be understood in the context of Rule 6 and 21 of 2010 Rules. Otherwise, situations can arise where the EC/CEM is propped up on the support of nominated members and lesser number of elected members, while the larger number of elected members are against the EC/CEM, which would subvert the very purpose of a democratic form of Government, keeping in mind the provisions of the 2010 Rules. This Court is accordingly of the view that the present case is covered by the Judgment of this Court in Miehlo Manasia Vs. State of Mizoram & Ors (supra), which has not been disturbed by the Apex Court, as the SLP No. 2345/2007 was dismissed vide Order dated 25.02.2007. This Court has also perused the Government files pertaining to the impugned letter dated 03.04.2007 and the Notification dated 07.08.2019 and finds that an exercise of consultation and discussion within the Government had taken place before the same were issued by the respondents. 31. Rule 24 of 2010 Rules states as follows:- "24 (1) The Executive Committee shall be collectively responsible to the District Council and may be removed on a vote of no confidence passed by a majority of the Members of the District Council present at a meeting specially convened for the purpose under rule 83. (2) In case of removal of the Executive Committee the Chairman shall forthwith submit a report to the Governor and cause election of a new Chief Executive Member within 48 hours of removal. (3) In case of failure of election within 48 hours the Governor shall assume the powers and functions of the Executive Committee." Though there is no specific provision in the 2002 Rules or in the 2010 Rules, showing that a no confidence motion can be tabled against the CEM, the provisions of the above 2 Rules, which are applicable for the MADC and LADC respectively, goes to show that a No Confidence Motion can be moved/tabled against the CEM of the MADC or the LADC. Rule 24 of 2010 Rules indicates that the removal of the Chief Executive Member of the LADC is intrinsically connected with the removal of the Executive Committee. Rule 24 of 2010 Rules indicates that the removal of the Chief Executive Member of the LADC is intrinsically connected with the removal of the Executive Committee. This is due to the fact that once the Executive Committee is removed by way of a vote of no confidence, the Chief Executive Member cannot continue to hold the post of CEM as he is the head of the Executive Committee and a new CEM is to be elected as per Rule 24(2). As such, a no confidence motion tabled against the Executive Committee has to be interpreted/considered to be a no confidence motion tabled against the CEM. This is apparent from a reading of Rule 24 of the 2010 Rules, which provides for removal of the Executive Committee by way of a no confidence motion passed by majority of the members of the District Council present. Further, Rule 21 (5) of the 2010 Rules states as follows:- "(5) The Governor may, if he considers necessary, cause the District Council to take up, or direct the Chief Executive Member to secure, a vote of confidence in favour of the Executive Committee within thirty days of the formation of the Executive Committee or of appointment of the Chief Executive Member, as the case may be." A perusal of the above Rule 21 (5) shows that the District Council or the Chief Executive Member may be directed, to secure a vote of confidence in favour of the Executive Committee within 30 days of formation of the Executive Committee or appointment of the Chief Executive Member, as the case may be. The above provision goes to show the link between the Chief Executive Member and the Executive Committee and the vote of no confidence against the Chief Executive Member or the Executive Committee, which will in turn, effect the position of the Executive Committee and the Chief Executive Member and vice-versa. 32. On a perusal of para 27 of the judgment of Tuliram Ranghang & Others v. Joyram Englan & Others (supra), it is seen that the Division Bench of this Court had held that the decision of Miehlo Manasia Vs. State of Mizoram & Ors (supra) was not applicable to the facts of that case and thus held that nominated members of Karbi Anglong Autonomous District Council in Assam were entitled to vote in a No Confidence Motion tabled against the CEM. State of Mizoram & Ors (supra) was not applicable to the facts of that case and thus held that nominated members of Karbi Anglong Autonomous District Council in Assam were entitled to vote in a No Confidence Motion tabled against the CEM. On perusal of Rule 19 and 20 of the Assam Autonomous Districts (Constitution of District Councils) Rules, 1951, hereinafter referred to as the 1951 Rules, which provides for formation of Executive Committee of the District Council and the election of the CEM, it is seen that there is nothing which specifically states that the formation of the Executive Committee or election of the CEM shall be made only by the elected members of the District Council. On the other hand, the 2010 Rules clearly provides for formation of the Executive Committee and the election of the CEM of the LADC only by the elected members of the District Council. Further, in the above case, there was an express bar for voting, in the Rules, on any matter during the proceedings of the Council, only in respect of the salaried nominated members and not nominated members per se. In view of the fact that there is a difference in the factual situation of this case and the above case, this Court is of the view that the decision in Tuliram Ranghang & Others v. Joyram Englan & Others (supra) is not applicable to the facts of this case. 33. A perusal of the Government of Union Territories Act, 1963 also does not indicate that the Council of Ministers of the Puducherry Legislative Assembly can only be made from amongst elected members of the Assembly, while in the present case only the elected members of the LADC can have a say in the formation of the Executive Committee and election of the CEM in the LADC. Further, the Apex Court in the above case of K. Lakshminarayanan (supra) has held that as per Article 239A and the 1963 Act, appointment of nominated members by the Central Government in the Puducherry Legislative Assembly can be made without the concurrence of the Government of the Union Territory of Puducherry. However, in the present case, a nominated member has to be appointed/nominated by the Governor after the Chief Executive Member recommends the said nominated member under Rule 6(4) of the 2010 Rules. However, in the present case, a nominated member has to be appointed/nominated by the Governor after the Chief Executive Member recommends the said nominated member under Rule 6(4) of the 2010 Rules. Though the words used in Rule 37 of the 2010 Rules, Rule 38 of the 2002 Rules and Section 12(1)(2) of the 1963 Act, which deals with the issue of voting on all questions at any sitting of the District Council/Legislative Assembly of Puducherry are similar, they all start with the words "Save as otherwise provided". As stated earlier, Rule 37 of the 2010 Rules would have to be read in conjunction with Rule 6 & 21 of the 2010 Rules, which bars nominated members from taking part in the formation of the EC and election of the CEM. In fact, a close look at the 2010 Rules indicates that the nominated members are appointed only after the EC is formed and CEM is elected from amongst the elected members of the largest Legislature Party. However, the 1963 Act does not have a similar provision as provided in Rule 6(4) and Rule 21(2) of the 2010 Rules, which expressly bars the nominated members from taking part in the formation of the Government/Council of Ministers and election of the Chief Minister. As the facts of this case and the facts in K. Lakshminarayanan are different, this Court is accordingly of the view that the judgment of the Apex Court in K. Lakshminarayanan (supra) is also not applicable to the facts of this case. 34. The above being said, the Manipur High Court in the case of Tuntanbou Guangta & Anr v. State of Manipur & Others, (2017) 5 GauLT 364 (MN), was to decide a question whether nominated members to the Tamenglong Autonomous District Council, constituted under the Manipur (Hill Areas) District Council Act, 1971, could cast their votes in the proposed vote of No Confidence Motion against the Chairman of the Autonomous District Council. The Manipur High Court, by following the judgment of the Apex Court in Union of India & Others v. Filip Tiago De Gama of Vedem Vasco De Gama, (1990) AIR SC 981, held that though normally, the court should adopt the rule of literal construction for interpreting statutes, it was also equally well settled that if such construction led to some absurdity or inconsistency, the court can abandon the same and in such a situation, the court can adopt other methods of interpretation, including purposive interpretation. It thus held that the interpretation of Section 23 of the Manipur (Hill Areas) Autonomous District Council Act, 1971 and related corresponding Rules under Manipur (Hill Areas) District Council Rules, 1972, were to be read to exclude participation of the nominated members in the proceedings of the Council, including in the election of the Chairman or Vice-Chairman or in the No Confidence Motion against the Chairman and Vice-Chairman. Also, one of the reasons for coming to the above decision was stated in para 79 of the said judgment, the extract of which is reproduced below: "79.. ..........This practice of nominating members to the District Councils after the Chairmen and Vice-Chairmen are elected and, that the nominated members are not elected as Chairmen or Vice Chairmen are also indicative of the fact that nominated members are not expected to play any role in the election of Chairmen or Vice Chairmen. If that is so, this Court also does not see any reason why the nominated members should be allowed to take part in any proceeding for removal of the Chairmen or the Vice Chairmen. This practice to keep away the nominated members in such proceedings of election of Chairmen and Vice Chairmen is in tune with the normal democratic concept and practice where the responsibility of running the affairs of governance is entrusted to the elected representatives. As a corollary, participation of nominated members in the proceedings for removal of Chairmen and Vice Chairmen will also be opposed to the democratic norm." 35. This Court is also of the view that a purposive interpretation of Rule 2(o), 6(4), 21, 24 and 37 of the 2010 Rules excludes the participation of nominated members from a no- confidence motion tabled against the Chief Executive Member or the Executive Committee. 36. This Court is also of the view that a purposive interpretation of Rule 2(o), 6(4), 21, 24 and 37 of the 2010 Rules excludes the participation of nominated members from a no- confidence motion tabled against the Chief Executive Member or the Executive Committee. 36. In view of the reasons stated above, this Court does not find any ground to interfere with the impugned letter dated 03.04.2007 and impugned Notification dated 07.08.2019. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.