Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 345 (GAU)

H. Lalramdinhluna v. State Of Mizoram

2020-03-04

ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA, SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI

body2020
JUDGMENT Am Bujor Barua, J. - Heard Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned senior counsel for the appellants, Mr. A.D Choudhury, learned Additional Advocate General for the State of Mizoram for the respondents No. 1, 2 and 4 and Mr. B. Lalramenga learned counsel for the respondent No.3. 2. This appeal involves the interpretation of the provisions of the Lai Autonomous District Council (Constitution, Conduct of Business etc.) Rules, 2010. It is an admitted position that the Lai Autonomous District Council (Constitution, Conduct of Business etc.) Rules, 2010 (in short LADC Rules 2010), Mara Autonomous District Council (Constitution, Conduct of Business etc.) Rules, 2002 (in short MADC Rules 2002) and the Chakma Autonomous District Council (Constitution, Conduct of Business etc.) Rules, 2002 (in short CADC Rules 2002) are parimateria with each other and all the three Rules are framed under paragraph 2(7) of the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution of India. Earlier a question had arisen as to whether the nominated members of the Autonomous District Councils in the State of Mizoram are empowered to vote in a proceeding of vote of confidence in respect of the Chief Executive Member of the Executive Council. In the earlier round of litigation in respect to the MADC Rules 2002, a situation had arisen where the Chief Executive Member (CEM) Mr. Vyakhu, an independent member, was required to seek a vote of confidence. By a notification of 28.11.2006, a direction was issued requiring the CEM of MADC to secure a vote of confidence of the house in a special session to be held on 08.01.2007 by providing that the vote of confidence shall be secured through a motion in which only the elected members of the Council shall vote. Mr. Vyakhu, the independent member, who was the CEM required the help of the nominated members to sail through the vote of confidence and in the resultant situation, the notification dated 28.11.2006 was assailed resulting in WP(C) No. 6165/2006 (Miehlo Manasia -vs- State of Mizoram and others). 3. The said writ petition was given a final consideration by the judgment dated 08.01.2007 of the learned Single Judge. In paragraph-8 of the judgment of the learned Single Judge, Rule-2, Rule-6, Rule-7, Rule-22, Rule-24, Rule-25, Rule-38 and Rule-84 of the MADC Rules 2002 were extracted. 3. The said writ petition was given a final consideration by the judgment dated 08.01.2007 of the learned Single Judge. In paragraph-8 of the judgment of the learned Single Judge, Rule-2, Rule-6, Rule-7, Rule-22, Rule-24, Rule-25, Rule-38 and Rule-84 of the MADC Rules 2002 were extracted. While interpreting the provisions of Rule-22 of the MADC Rules 2002, in paragraphs 30 and 31 of the judgment, the following was held:- "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. Thus, unless the present CEM gains the support of the 4 nominated members along with 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. 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. 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." 4. Apparently it was the decision of the learned Single Judge that under Rule 22 (2) of the MADC Rules 2002, it is only the elected members, who can be called to be members for the purpose of voting in the vote of confidence. 5. Rule 24 of the MADC Rules 2002 relates to vacation of office by the CEM or the members of the Executive Committee by means of either ceasing to be a member of the District Council, or by means of resignation. On the other hand, Rule 25 relates to removal of the Executive Committee by means of a vote of no confidence passed by the majority of the members of the District Council. While discussing the Rule 24 of MADC Rules 2002, the learned Single Judge in paragraph 33 had made an observation that ''Had it been the intention of providing the same voting right atleast in the matter of no confidence motion, adequate provisions would have been made with clear indication." 6. On being carried to an intra-Court appeal against the judgment of the learned Single Judge, the judgment dated 01.02.2007 was passed by the Division Bench of this Court in WA 15/2007, wherein in paragraphs 9 and 10 the following were provided: "We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions made by the rival parties. On being carried to an intra-Court appeal against the judgment of the learned Single Judge, the judgment dated 01.02.2007 was passed by the Division Bench of this Court in WA 15/2007, wherein in paragraphs 9 and 10 the following were provided: "We have given our anxious consideration 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 fo 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 be 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. 10. We have examined the reasoning given by the learned Single Judge in passing the impugned order dated 8-1-2007 while dismissing the writ petition filed by the writ appellant. The learned Single Judge examined the provisions of the Rule 22(2) of the Rules which provides for formation of an Executive Committee to the District Council by the largest legislature party having a majority of elected members in the District Council and the leader elected by the said legislature party is to be appointed as the Chief Executive Member. The learned Single Judge examined the provisions of the Rule 22(2) of the Rules which provides for formation of an Executive Committee to the District Council by the largest legislature party having a majority of elected members in the District Council and the leader elected by the said legislature party is to be appointed as the Chief Executive Member. When the Chief Executive Member elected by the largest legislature party lose the confidence of the legislature party, the decision on continuance of such Chief Executive Member on the basis of a proceeding of vote of confidence with participation of the nominated members, where the nominated members can play a decisive role, was held to be antithesis to the express provision of Rule 22(2) of the Rules, in that context the learned Single Judge took the view that the definition of ''member'' given under Rule 2(o) has to be understood in the context of the Rules and held that in the context of election of a Chief Executive Member, only the elected members have a role to play." 7. Accordingly, it was held that the decision of the learned Single Judge and the reasoning given in support of such decision are justified and valid and the order of the learned Single Judge was upheld. The Division Bench in paragraph 9 had clearly held that from the provisions of MADC Rules 2002, it can be seen that a nominated member does not have a right to vote at the time of election of a CEM nor he has the right to be a candidate to the post of CEM. A conclusion was arrived that unlike the provision in the Rules pertaining to the Bodoland Territorial Council as regards the nominated members, no provision is available in the MADC Rules of 2002, whereby voting rights had been given to the nominated members. It was also held that the learned Single Judge had examined the provisions of Rule 22 (2) of the MADC Rules 2002, which provides for formation of an Executive Committee to the District Council by the largest legislature party having a majority of elected members and the leader elected by such legislature party is to be appointed as the CEM. It was also held that the learned Single Judge had examined the provisions of Rule 22 (2) of the MADC Rules 2002, which provides for formation of an Executive Committee to the District Council by the largest legislature party having a majority of elected members and the leader elected by such legislature party is to be appointed as the CEM. When the CEM elected by the largest legislature party loses confidence of the legislature party, the decision on the continuance of such executive member on the basis of a proceeding of vote of confidence with the participation of the nominated members was held by the learned Single Judge upon examination of the provision of Rule 22(2) to be an authorities. Accordingly, a view was taken by the learned Single Judge that the definition of ''Member'' under Rule 2(o) has to be understood to be in the context of the Rules and held that in the context of election of a Chief Executive Member, only the elected members have a role to play. 8. In other words, the Division Bench in upholding the judgment of the learned Single Judge took into consideration that firstly, in the Rules related to the Bodoland Territorial Council, it had been specifically provided that the nominated members are entitled to vote in any proceeding and secondly, the view expressed by the learned Single Judge that it would be an antithesis to the express provision of Rule 22(2) if the nominated members are also allowed to participate in the proceeding of vote of confidence for continuance of the CEM and therefore, in the context of election of a CEM, only the elected members would have a role to play. In the circumstance above, the Under Secretary to the Government of Mizoram, District Council Affairs Department by the communication dated 03.04.2007 made to the Secretary, Lai Autonomous District Council had issued a clarification as regards the voting right of the nominated members of the District Council. The clarification reads as under:- "Provisions relating to election of Chief Executive Member are same in all the three CCB Rules of Lais, Maras and Chakmas. The clarification reads as under:- "Provisions relating to election of Chief Executive Member are same in all the three CCB Rules of Lais, Maras and Chakmas. Similarly absence of any right of nominated members in voting in the House on a ''Confidence Motion'' as contemplated in Rule 22(5) of the CCB Rules of the three District Councils, and for the matter in respect of the voting or any No-Confidence Motion against a Chief Executive Member is same for all ''the three District Councils''. This is the spirit of the judgment of the Gauhati H/C in the WP(C) No.6165 of 2006 and in the WA No.15 of 2007 (M. Manasia -Vrs- State of Mizoram). The law as laid down by the High Court has to apply equally to all the three District Councils, and it applies. Therefore, in exercise of the powers available under Paragraph 3(2) of the Lai Autonomous District Council (CCB etc.) Rules, 2002 as amended from time to time, His Excellency, the Governor interprete that in the case of any No Confidence Motion or Confidence Motion or election in respect of Chief Executive Member, the nominated members of the Lai Autonomous District Council shall not have any voting rights. However, in respect of any other motion or resolution moved or taken up for voting in the House of the Council the nominated members shall have the voting. This will apply equally to Mara Autonomous District Council and Chakma Autonomous District Council also." 9. A reading of the clarification of the District Council Affairs Department would go to show that the provision related to the election of CEM in respect of the Lai Autonomous District Council, Mara Autonomous District Council and Chakma Autonomous District Council are same. Accordingly, the absence of any right to vote of a nominated member in a confidence motion contemplated under Rule 22(2) of the MADC Rules 2002 or for that matter in any no confidence motion against the CEM would be in respect of all the three District Councils. Accordingly, the absence of any right to vote of a nominated member in a confidence motion contemplated under Rule 22(2) of the MADC Rules 2002 or for that matter in any no confidence motion against the CEM would be in respect of all the three District Councils. The clarification specifically provides that the absence of the voting right of the nominated member in a confidence motion or in a no confidence motion in respect of a CEM is the spirit of the judgment of the Gauhati High Court in WP(C) 6165/2006 i.e. the judgment dated 08.01.2007 of the learned Single Judge referred above and WA 15/2007 i.e. the judgment dated 01.02.2007 of the Division Bench referred above. The view of the District Council Affairs Department was that the law laid down by the High Court in respect of MADC Rules 2002 would equally apply to all the three District Councils. 10. Accordingly, in the clarification, it was provided that therefore in exercise of the powers under Rule 3(2) of the LADC Rules 2010, the Governor of Mizoram had interpreted that in case of any no confidence motion or confidence motion or in respect of election of the CEM, the nominated members of the LADC shall not have any voting rights. In the aforesaid circumstances, the incumbent CEM, LADC made a representation dated 01.07.2019 to the Governor of Mizoram stating that although the clarification dated 03.04.2007 provided that the nominated members of the District Councils would have no voting right in the event of a confidence motion/no confidence motion in respect of the CEM, which was made on the basis of the judgment of this Court in WA 15/2007 (Miehlo Manasia -vs- State of Mizoram and others), but in the meantime, the High Court as well as the Supreme Court had passed contrary judgments, wherein it was held that nominated members have the right to vote in a proceeding and business of the house. Accordingly, reference was made to a judgment of this Court in WA 351/2013 in case of Tuliram Ranghang and others -vs- Joyram Englan and others and Civil Appeal No.11887/2018 of the Supreme Court in case of K. Laxminarayanan -vs- Union of India and others. Upon a consideration of the said representation of the incumbent CEM, the notification dated 07.08.2019 of the Secretary to the Government of Mizoram, District Council and Minority Affairs Department was issued. Upon a consideration of the said representation of the incumbent CEM, the notification dated 07.08.2019 of the Secretary to the Government of Mizoram, District Council and Minority Affairs Department was issued. The notification is extracted as below:- "Whereas in the circumstances prevailing in the Lai Autonomous District Council and in response of a representation submitted by Pu T Zakunga, Chief Executive Member, Lai Autonomous District Council addressed to the Governor on 27/6/2019, it is considered expedient by the Governor to exercise the powers conferred under Para 20 BB of Sixth Schedule to the Constitution of India: Now, therefore, the Governor of Mizoram, after due consultation with the Law & Judicial Department, Government of Mizoram, is pleased to reiterate that the Nominated Members of the Autonomous District Councils in Mizoram shall not have voting rights in case of any No Confidence Motion or Confidence or in election of the Chief Executive Member which is in consistent with the provisions of Rule 21(2) of the Lai Autonomous District Council (CCB) Rules, as amended from time to time which states that "The Executive Committee shall be formed by the largest Legislature Party having an absolute majority of elected members in the District Council." 11. A reading of the first paragraph of the notification of 07.08.2019 would show that the representation of the incumbent CEM was given a consideration by the Governor in exercise of the powers under paragraph 20(BB) of the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution of India. The second paragraph of the notification provides that the Governor after due consultation with the Law and Judicial Department was pleased to reiterate that the nominated members of the Autonomous District Council in Mizoram shall have no voting rights in case of any no confidence motion or confidence motion or election in respect of the CEM, which would be consistent with the provision of Rule 21(2) of the LADC Rules 2010. Being aggrieved by the notification dated 07.08.2019 as well as the clarification dated 03.04.2007, the WP(C) No.92/2019 was preferred before the Aizawl Bench. 12. Being aggrieved by the notification dated 07.08.2019 as well as the clarification dated 03.04.2007, the WP(C) No.92/2019 was preferred before the Aizawl Bench. 12. Contentions were raised that the Supreme Court in K. Laxminarayanan (supra) had held that both the elected and nominated members were a part of the Puducherry Legislative Assembly and therefore Section 12(1) of the Government of Union Territories Act, 1963 was interpreted to mean that all the members of the Puducherry Legislative Assembly, including the nominated members, were entitled to vote even in respect of a no confidence motion. Accordingly, it was contended that the provisions of Section 12(1) and (2) of the Government of Union Territories Act, 1963 and Rule 37(1) and (2) of the LADC Rules 2010 being parimateria in nature, the interpretation given by the Supreme Court in respect of Section 12(1) and (2) of the Government of Union Territories Act, 1963 would also be applicable to interpret the provisions of Rule 37(1) and (2) of the LADC Rules 2010. Further contention was also raised that a reading of Rules 24(1) and 36(1) of the LADC Rules 2010 does not debar a nominated member from participating and voting in a no confidence motion against the CEM. A contention was also raised that the judgments of this Court of the learned single Judge as well as the Division Bench in Miehlo Manasia (supra) would not be applicable in the case at hand as the said judgments were given in connection with the MADC Rules 2002 and not under the LADC Rules 2010. 13. Per-Contra, the learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State of Mizoram raised a contention that the judgment of the Supreme Court in K. Laxminarayanan (supra) would not be applicable to the facts of the present case and on the other hand the present matter would squarely be covered by the judgment of the learned Single Judge and Division Bench in Miehlo Manasia (supra). 14. The learned Single Judge in the judgment dated 08.01.2010 had given a consideration to the provisions laid down in K. Laxminarayanan (supra) as well as Tuliram Ranghang (supra). 14. The learned Single Judge in the judgment dated 08.01.2010 had given a consideration to the provisions laid down in K. Laxminarayanan (supra) as well as Tuliram Ranghang (supra). In respect of K. Laxminarayanan (supra), the learned Single Judge took the view that the Supreme Court had taken into consideration that the composition of the Puducherry Legislative Assembly comprised both of elected and nominated persons and therefore in that context, Section 12(1) of the Government of Union Territories Act 1963 was interpreted. In respect of Tuliram Ranghang (Supra), the learned Single Judge was of the view that the Assam Autonomous District (Constitution of District Council) Rules, 1951, which was interpreted in Tuliram Ranghang (supra) did not provide for any expressed bar for a nominated member to vote on any matter during the proceedings of the Council, except for a salaried nominated member. Under the Rules which were interpreted in Tuliram Ranghang (supra), the only restriction was that in the event a salaried person is nominated as a member, such nominated member would not have a voting right, but there would be no bar upon any other form of nominated members from exercising a voting right, which also included exercising of voting rights in a no confidence motion. Accordingly, it was accepted that as the LADC Rules 2010 does not contain a similar provision like the Government Union Territories Act 1963 and the Assam Autonomous District (Constitution of District Council) Rules 1951, the law laid down by the Supreme Court in K. Laxminarayanan (supra) and by this Court in Tuliram Ranghang (supra) cannot be made applicable for the purpose of interpreting the LADC Rules 2010. Accordingly, the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Miehlo Manasia (supra) was accepted that the reading of the word ''members of the district council'' provided in Rule 2(O) conjointly with Rule 22(2) of the MADC rules 2002 would show that only the elected members can vote in a motion for vote of confidence or no confidence of a CEM. Accordingly, the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Miehlo Manasia (supra) was accepted that the reading of the word ''members of the district council'' provided in Rule 2(O) conjointly with Rule 22(2) of the MADC rules 2002 would show that only the elected members can vote in a motion for vote of confidence or no confidence of a CEM. Further note was also taken by the learned Single Judge that as the 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 LADC Rules 2010, the nominated members also cannot have any right to take part in a vote of confidence or no confidence that may be taken up against the CEM or the Executive Committee. 15. We have noticed that the said view of the learned Single Judge is in conformity with the view expressed by the learned Single Judge in its judgment dated 08.01.2010 in Miehlo Manasia. We have also taken note of that in paragraph 31 of the judgment of the learned Single Judge, notice had been taken of the provisions of Rule 24 of the LADC Rules 2010, but in the discussion that followed, the only consideration made and conclusion arrived was that Rule 24 covers removal of the Chief Executive Member of the District Council as well as that of the removal of the Executive Committee. We further take note of that apart from such consideration and conclusion, no further consideration was given by the learned Single Judge as to the meaning, interpretation and purport of Rule 24 of the LADC Rules 2010. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge, the present intra-court appeal has been preferred. 16. Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned senior counsel for the appellants has raised the contention that no confidence motion against the CEM would be governed by the provisions of Rule 24 of the LADC Rules, 2010 and the Hon''ble Governor neither in the clarification dated 03.04.2007 nor in the notification dated 07.08.2019, had given a consideration nor any interpretation made as regards the provisions of Rule 24(1) of the LADC Rules, 2010. A further contention is raised that reading Rule 24(1) of the LADC Rules, 2010 conjointly with the provisions of Rule 37(1), would go to show that even the nominated members have a right to vote in a motion for no confidence. 17. Accordingly, it is contended that the provisions of Rule 37(1) of the LADC Rules, 2010 being pari materia with that of Section 12(1) of the Government Union Territories Act, 1963 (for short, "1963 Act"), the interpretation given by the Supreme Court in K. Laxminarayanan (supra) as regards Section 12(1) would also be applicable to interpret the provisions of Rule 37(1) of the LADC Rules, 2010. Section 12(1) of the 1963 Act having been interpreted in a manner that even the nominated members have a right to vote in a motion of no confidence and as the same interpretation would also be applicable in respect of Rule 37(1) of the LADC Rules, 2010, even the nominated members would be entitled to vote in the motion of no confidence in respect of the Lai Autonomous District Council. 18. Mr. A.D. Choudhury, learned Additional Advocate General, Mizoram appearing for the respondent authorities in the Government of Mizoram contends that there is a substantial difference in the layout of the provisions of the 1963 Act and that of the LADC Rules, 2010 and, therefore, although Section 12(1) of the 1963 Act and Rule 37(1) of the LADC Rules, 2010 are pari materia and similar to each other but because of the other provisions, which are available in the LADC Rules, 2010, the same interpretation as given by the Supreme Court in respect of Section 12(1) of the 1963 Act cannot be given in respect of Rule 37(1) of the LADC Rules, 2010. On the other hand, as the determination of this Court in respect of Miehlo Manasia (supra) is in respect of the MADC Rules, 2002, which has been accepted to be same as that of LADC Rules, 2010, it is the interpretation given in respect of MADC Rules, 2002, which would be applicable. On the other hand, as the determination of this Court in respect of Miehlo Manasia (supra) is in respect of the MADC Rules, 2002, which has been accepted to be same as that of LADC Rules, 2010, it is the interpretation given in respect of MADC Rules, 2002, which would be applicable. As while interpreting the MADC Rules, 2002, it had clearly been held that the nominated members would have no voting right in a motion of confidence, therefore, the same interpretation would also be applicable in respect of LADC Rules, 2010 and as such, a nominated member cannot have a voting right even for the purpose of a motion for no confidence. 19. For convenience, we extract herein below the provisions of Rules 21, 24 and 37 of the LADC Rules, 2010:- "Formation of Executive Committee: 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. (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 reappointed. (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. (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. (7) There shall be paid to the Chief Executive Member and the Executive Members of the District Council such salaries, allowances as may be fixed by the rules made by District Council subject to approval of the Governor. Removal of Members of Executive Committee: 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. Voting in the District Council: 27 (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. 20. 20. We have gone through the provisions of the 1963 Act and have taken note of that apart from Section 12(1), no further provision is available in the said Act as regards the voting rights of a nominated member in a motion of confidence or motion of no confidence. From the said point of view, we are in agreement with the contention of Mr. A.D. Choudhury that there is a difference between the provisions of the 1963 Act and that of LADC Rules, 2010. 21. But at the same time, merely because the provisions of LADC Rules, 2010 may have some further provisions as regards the question of voting rights of the nominated members, the same by itself may not be a reason that the interpretation of the Supreme Court in K. Laxminarayanan (supra) that the nominated members would also have a voting right in a motion of no confidence, would not at all be applicable while interpreting the provisions of LADC Rules, 2010. 22. A more appropriate answer to the contention raised would be as to what are the further provisions that are available in the LADC Rules, 2010 over and above Rule 37(1), and what meaning, purport and interpretation can be given to such further provisions. At the same time, we are also unable to accept the contention of Mr. A.D. Choudhury that as because the LADC Rules, 2010 contains some further provisions, therefore, the interpretation given to the MADC Rules, 2002 by the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench of this Court in Miehlo Manasia (supra) would straight away be applicable. 23. We have already taken note of that in Miehlo Manasia (supra), the learned Single Judge had interpreted the provisions of Rule 22(2) of the MADC Rules, 2002, which in fact is pari materia with that of Rule 21(2) of the LADC Rules, 2010. While upholding the interpretation of the learned Single Judge, the Division Bench arrived at its conclusion that a CEM is elected by the elected members and, therefore, it would be an antithesis if for his removal under the motion of no confidence, the nominated members would also be made entitled to vote. While upholding the interpretation of the learned Single Judge, the Division Bench arrived at its conclusion that a CEM is elected by the elected members and, therefore, it would be an antithesis if for his removal under the motion of no confidence, the nominated members would also be made entitled to vote. Further, the said conclusion was fortified by arriving at its conclusion that in respect of the Rules pertaining to the Bodoland Autonomous Council, it was specifically provided that the nominated members would also have a voting right and as because such specific provision is not available in the LADC Rules, 2010, therefore, it would have to be construed that the nominated members will not have such voting right. 24. We have carefully gone through the judgment of the learned Single Judge as well as that of the Division Bench and have taken note of that neither any consideration was made nor any conclusion was arrived at as regards the provisions of Rule 25(1) of the MADC Rules, 2002, which would again is pari materia with that of Rule 24(1) of the LADC Rules, 2010. In fact Rule 25(1) of the MADC Rules, 2002 was not given any consideration either by the learned Single Judge or by the Division Bench nor any interpretation had been given as regards its provisions. Rules 25(1) of the MADC Rules, 2002 and 24(1) of the LADC Rules, 2010 are extracted herein below:- "Removal etc of Members of Executive Committee: 25 (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 84 of these Rules." Removal of Members of Executive Committee: 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." 25. A reading of Rule 24(1) would go to show 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 present at the meeting specially convened for the purpose. A reading of Rule 24(1) would go to show 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 present at the meeting specially convened for the purpose. In other words, we are of the view that in respect of the question as to whether a nominated member has a voting right in a motion of no confidence, the appropriate provision under the LADC Rules, 2010 is Rule 24(1). As already extracted, Rule 21(2) of the LADC Rules, 2010 merely provides that the Executive Committee shall be formed by the largest legislature party having an absolute majority of elected members in the District Council. The said provision is basically in the nature of an enabling provision, which provides that the largest legislature party having an absolute majority would form the Executive Committee. The manner in which the CEM would be appointed is provided under Rule 21(4), which provides that subject to Sub-Rule (2) and (3), the CEM shall be appointed by the Governor, while the other members of the Executive Committee shall be appointed by the Governor on the recommendation or recommendations of the CEM. No doubt the provisions of Rules 21(2) and 21(4) pertain to as to how a CEM or as a matter of fact, the Executive Committee would be appointed or formed. 26. Without expressing any view on the merit of the conclusions arrived at by the learned Single Judge as well as by the Division Bench in Miehlo Manasia (supra), as regards the voting right of a nominated member, but what we specifically take note of is that such conclusion was arrived on the basis that it would be an antithesis to allow the nominated members to vote in a motion of no confidence when such members do not participate in the process of formation of the Executive Committee or appointment of the CEM. In other words, such decision is based only on a question of political propriety rather than on the basis of an interpretation of any specific provisions of the Rules. In other words, such decision is based only on a question of political propriety rather than on the basis of an interpretation of any specific provisions of the Rules. But at the same time, we cannot be oblivious to the provisions of Rule 24(1) of the LADC Rules, 2010, which specifically provides that the Executive Committee 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. In other words, an interpretation would be required as to who would constitute or would be considered to be members of the District Council so as to arrive at a conclusion whether a nominated member would have the right to vote in a motion of no confidence. 27. We further take note of that neither in the judgment of the learned Single Judge nor that of the Division Bench in Miehlo Manasia (supra), a consideration or an interpretation was given in respect of the provisions of Rule 25(1) of the MADC Rules, 2002. We have also perused the records of the proceedings before the Hon''ble Governor while issuing the clarification dated 03.04.2007 and the notification dated 07.08.2019 and from such proceedings as well as from the opinion of the Law Department of the Government of Mizoram, it is nowhere discernable that any consideration was given to interpret the provisions of Rule 24(1) of the LADC Rules, 2010. As Rule 24(1) of the LADC Rules, 2010 was framed specifically for the purpose of a motion of no confidence to be passed by a majority of the members of the District Council, we are of the view that the question as to whether the nominated members would have a voting right in a motion of no confidence would depend on the interpretation of Rule 24(1) of the LADC Rules, 2010. Further, a similar provision like that of Rule 24(1) of the LADC Rules, 2010 being absent either in the Assam Autonomous Districts (Constitution of District Councils) Rules, 1951 as well as in the provisions of the 1963 Act, the various interpretations given to the Assam Autonomous District (Constitution of District Council) Rules, 1951, and the 1963 Act in Tuliram Ranghang (supra) and K. Laxminarayanan (supra) may not on its own be the sole answer for interpreting the provisions of Rule 24(1) of the LADC Rules, 2010 nor as concluded in paragraph 21 herein above the interpretation given in Tuliram Ranghang (supra) and K. Laxminarayanan (supra) would not at all be applicable while interpreting the provisions of Rule 24(1) of the said Rules. 28. It has been urged by both the parties that this Court may venture into the aspect of giving an interpretation to Rule 24(1) of the LADC Rules, 2010 but, however, we take note of that Rule 3(2) of the LADC Rules, 2010 specifically provides that subject to the provisions of Sub-Rule (1) thereof, if any question arises as to the interpretation of the Rules, it shall be referred for a decision of the Governor and the decision of the Hon''ble Governor shall be final. As it is a specific provision of the Rule that the appropriate authority to give an interpretation of the Rules would be the Hon''ble Governor of Mizoram, therefore, we deem it that it would be appropriate for the Hon''ble Governor of Mizoram to go into the question and give an interpretation to the provisions of Rule 24(1) of the LADC Rules, 2010 by exercising the powers under Rule 3(2) of the Rules. 29. 29. As neither the learned Single Judge nor the Division Bench in Miehlo Manasia (supra) had made any attempt to interpret the provisions of Rule 24(1) of the LADC Rules, 2010 and as this Court in Tuliram Ronghang (supra) and the Supreme Court in K. Laxminarayanan (supra) did not have the occasion to go into the aspect of interpreting a similar Rule and nor there was any requirement for the Supreme Court to give an interpretation to a Rule of similar nature, we are of the view that all such interpretations given by the various Courts may not be the sole basis of the decision of the Hon''ble Governor for interpreting the provisions of Rule 24(1) and the Hon''ble Governor may take an independent decision as to what Rule 24(1) of the LADC Rules, 2010 provides for. We also request that while giving an interpretation to Rule 24(1) of the LADC Rules, 2010, a reason thereof be also stated so that the respective parties would be in a position to know as to where they stand. 30. As the question of interpretation of Rule 24(1) of the LADC Rules, 2010 would have a bearing on the political outcome of the Lai Autonomous Council, we request that the interpretation of the Rules be made at an earliest. Accordingly, we also provide that the earlier interim order dated 25.11.2019 be continued till the Hon''ble Governor decides on the interpretation of Rule 24(1) of the LADC Rules, 2010 and appropriate notifications are issued. It is provided that the interpretation to be given to Rule 24(1) of the LADC Rules, 2010 would prevail over the earlier clarifications and notifications as regards the voting right of a nominated member in a motion for no confidence. 31. With the above observations and requirements, the writ appeal stands disposed of. 32. The records are returned back to Mr. A.D. Choudhury, learned Additional Advocate General, Mizoram.