ORDER : SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, J.: 1. Considering the facts and as agreed to by the parties, this writ petition which was filed in the year 2015 is taken up for disposal at the admission stage. 2. The petitioners who are office bearers of various organizations of the Tiwa Autonomous Council are aggrieved by the decision to exclude holding of elections in six numbers of Constituencies under the Tiwa Autonomous Council (hereinafter TAC), namely, 26 No. Dimoria Constituency (ST), 32 No. Digaru Constituency (Open), 33 No. Khetri Constituency (Open Women), 34 No. Sonapur Constituency (Open), 35 No. Ampri Constituency (Open) and 36 No. Phong-Ari Constituency (Open). It is the case of the petitioner that in the election for the TAC held in the year 2010, on the pretext of law and order problem, elections which was held for the Council had excluded the aforesaid six numbers of constituencies, Similar was the stand of the State Government while holding the election on completion of the term in the year 2015 and this exclusion is the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition. 3. I have heard Mr. P.N. Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioners. I have also heard Mr. G. Pegu, learned State Counsel, Mr. N. Bora, learned Standing Counsel for the State Election Commission. Though the name of Mr. S. Neogi, learned Standing Counsel, TAC is reflected in the cause list none has appeared. 4. Mr. P.N. Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioners by referring to the notification dated 01.06.2010 submits that the reasons cited for excluding the aforesaid six numbers of Constituencies in the elections held in the year 2010 was law and order problem and in the anticipation that holding of elections may lead to loss of life and also would be a violent affair. 5. By drawing the attention of the Court to the impugned notification dated 22.07.2015, it is submitted that even for the elections held in the year 2015, the aforesaid six numbers of Constituencies under the TAC were excluded keeping in view the agitational programme resorted to by some section of people. 6. Accordingly out of 36 of total Constituencies, elections for the Council were held for 30 numbers of Constituencies leaving out the aforesaid six numbers. 7. Referring to the Lalung (Tiwa) Autonomous Council Act, 1995, Mr. 6. Accordingly out of 36 of total Constituencies, elections for the Council were held for 30 numbers of Constituencies leaving out the aforesaid six numbers. 7. Referring to the Lalung (Tiwa) Autonomous Council Act, 1995, Mr. Goswami submits that the term of the General Council has been prescribed to be five years as per Section 7 of the Act. Though initially 26 numbers of Constituencies were earmarked, by subsequent amendment, the Constituencies were increased to 36 which included the aforesaid six constituencies. Referring to Chapter XII of the said Act, Mr. Goswami submits that the obligations to hold the elections and the procedure to be followed have been elaborately laid down. Reliance has also been placed in the case of Krishansing Tomar v. Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad reported in (2006) 8 SCC 352 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court in categorical terms laid down the importance of holding the elections for the State municipalities in time in accordance with the Constitutional mandate. Reliance is also made to another decision in The matter of Special Reference No. 1 of 2002 (Gujarat Assembly Election Matter) reported in (2002) 8 SCC 237 wherein a similar view has been expressed. 8. Mr. Goswami, learned counsel finally submits that the reason cited for excluding the six numbers of Constituencies from the elections in the year 2010 as well as in the year 2015 are not at all legally tenable and law and order has to be dealt with by the State in holding the elections that too for a Council of only 36 numbers of Constituencies within a particular geographical area in three districts of the State of Assam namely, Kamrup, Morigaon and Nagaon. 9. Mr. Pegu, learned State Counsel on the other hand submits that decision not to hold elections in the six numbers of Constituency was for the interest of public as there was apprehension of violence. So far as the elections held in the year 2015 are concerned, there were sufficient causes in the form agitation by certain group which prevented holding of such elections in the said constituencies. 10. Mr. N. Bora, learned Standing Counsel for the State Election Commission submits that the respondent No. 2, Commission is only the nodal agency through which the election are to be hold and this decision to hold such election is ultimately of the State Government. 11. Mr. 10. Mr. N. Bora, learned Standing Counsel for the State Election Commission submits that the respondent No. 2, Commission is only the nodal agency through which the election are to be hold and this decision to hold such election is ultimately of the State Government. 11. Mr. Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioners rejoins by submitting that so far as the election in the year 2015 are concerned, the term is coming to an end in the year 2020 and his apprehension is that even in the next election scheduled in the year 2020 a similar approach would be there from the State Govt. to exclude the six numbers of Constituencies from the elections. 12. The rival contentions of the counsel for the respective parties have been duly considered. This Court is of the view that once 36 numbers of Constituencies have been earmarked, there can be no reason to exclude any one of the Constituencies in the elections of the Council that too, in a permanent manner. The sequences of events starting from the elections of the year 2010 and the last election held in 2015 would establish that the authorities are deliberately avoiding holding of elections in the aforesaid six numbers of Constituencies. While the power for delimitation of Constituencies is available to the State authorities in reducing or increasing the number of Constituencies in accordance with law, after constituencies have been earmarked, it is the legal obligation of the State to hold elections in each of the Constituencies after completion of the term of the Council. 13. In this connection, reference can be drawn to the constitutional provision for similar schemes for decentralization of powers including those like Panchayat and Municipalities. Under Article 243 E of the Constitution of India there is a mandate to hold timely elections for Panchayats and under Article 243 U, such mandate has been laid down so far as Municipalities are concerned. Even for Councils under the 6th Schedule of the Constitution of India, holding of timely elections in the constituencies is a constitutional mandate. 14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid two decisions have categorically laid down the importance of holding the timely elections in the grass root level organizations. Even for Councils under the 6th Schedule of the Constitution of India, holding of timely elections in the constituencies is a constitutional mandate. 14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid two decisions have categorically laid down the importance of holding the timely elections in the grass root level organizations. The Lalung (Tiwa) Autonomous Council being the creature of a statute, when there is a requirement under the statute to hold the elections in all the Constituencies, there is a legal obligation on the part of the authorities to hold such elections. This Court is of the opinion that the reason cited for not holding the election in the aforesaid six numbers of Constituencies in the year 2010 and 2015 are absolutely untenable in law as the state machinery has to deal with any law and order issue which may arise at the time of holding the elections, that too, for a Council existing in a geographical area covering parts of only three districts of the State of Assam. 15. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the discussions made, though no directions are issued so far as the elections held in the year 2015 are concerned in view of the fact that the term is on the verge of completion, it is directed that for the elections which are to be held in the year 2020, the same has to include all the 36 numbers of Constituencies as stipulated in the Act of 1995, as amended. Since the reason cited for not holding the election in the aforesaid six numbers of Constituencies in the year 2010 and 2015 are held to be untenable in law, the State respondents are restrained from taking up any similar reasons so far as the elections scheduled in 2020 are concerned. 16. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of.