JUDGMENT Michael Zothankhuma, J. - Heard Mr. A.R. Malhotra, learned counsel for the writ petitioners in WP(C) Nos. 67 & 68/2020. Also heard Mr. Jonathan L. Sailo, learned counsel for the writ petitioners in WP(C) No. 69/2020, Mr. J.C. Lalnunsanga, learned counsel for the writ petitioners in WP(C) No. 66/2020 and Mr. Joseph L. Renthlei, learned counsel for the writ petitioners in WP(C) No. 79/2020. Mr. B. Lalramenga appears for the Lai Autonomous District Council (in short LADC), while no one appears for the private respondents. 2. All these writ petitions have challenged the suspension of various Village Councils vide notifications issued by the Executive Committee of the Lai Autonomous District Council (LADC) under Chapter-2 Section 11 (1) of the Lai Autonomous District (Village Councils) Act, 2010 (herein after referred to as 2010 Act) and its amendments. As the issues in all the writ petitions are similar, all the writ petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment & order. 3. The petitioners in all the writ petitions were elected members of various Village Councils and their five year term as Village Council Members were to end in the year 2024. 4. The petitioners' case is that while the Village Councils were sincerely discharging their duties in the various villages, the Executive Committee of the LADC appointed various One-Man Inquiry Commissions under Section 10 (1) of the 2010 Act, to inquire into allegations that the Village Councils in which the petitioners were members had indulged in corrupt practices while utilizing funds. The One-Man Inquiry Commissions were also directed to submit a report to the respondent Nos. 1 & 2. 5. On the basis of the reports submitted by the One-Man Inquiry Commissions to the respondent Nos. 1 & 2, the respondent No. 2 issued show cause notices to some of the petitioners, specifically those who were appointed as Village Council Presidents of the various Village Councils. The Village Council Presidents of the various villages, except for the Village Council President of Bolisora Village (WP(C) No. 66/2020), submitted their replies with regard to the allegations made in the show cause notices. However, the Executive Committee of the LADC issued various impugned notifications suspending the various Village Councils for a period of 3 (three) months under Section 11 (1) of the 2010 Act. 6. However, the Executive Committee of the LADC issued various impugned notifications suspending the various Village Councils for a period of 3 (three) months under Section 11 (1) of the 2010 Act. 6. The learned counsels for the writ petitioners submit that the impugned notifications suspending the various Village Councils should be set aside, in view of the fact that the orders appointing the One-Man Inquiry Commissions have not been made by way of public notifications as required under Section 10 (1) of the 2010 Act. Secondly, the suspension of the Village Councils could have been done by the Executive Committee of the LADC, only after a recommendation had been made for the same by the One-Man Inquiry Commissions, as required under Section 11 (1) of the 2010 Act. However, the report made by the One-Man Inquiry Commissions, pertaining to all the above cases, did not contain any recommendation of the Commissions to suspend the Village Councils. Thirdly, the Village Councils of the various villages being comprised of elected persons, the State respondents were duty bound to issue notices, not only to the Village Council Presidents but also to each of the Village Council Members, prior to issuing any order that could affect the Village Council Members. The same not being done, the impugned orders of suspension of the Village Councils were in violation of the principles of natural justice. 7. Mr. J.C. Lalnunsanga, learned counsel for the writ petitioners in WP(C) No. 66/2020 submits that no notice was served even upon the Village Council President or the Village Council Members in respect of Bolisora Village Council. He also submits that the One-Man Inquiry Commission appointed in respect of WP(C) No. 66/2020 had not been appointed by the Executive Committee of the LADC, as required under Section 10 (1) of the 2010 Act, but by the Local Administrative Officer. As such, the constitution of the One Man Inquiry Commission to enquire into the allegations made against the Bolisora Village Council had no legal sanctity. 8. Mr. As such, the constitution of the One Man Inquiry Commission to enquire into the allegations made against the Bolisora Village Council had no legal sanctity. 8. Mr. B. Lalramenga, learned counsel for the LADC submits that as the appointments of the One-Man Inquiry Commissions had been made by the Executive Committee and the same had been communicated to all the concerned persons, i.e., all the Village Council Members, the same had fulfilled the requirements of Section 10 (1) of the 2010 Act, as the said appointment orders were made by way of public notifications. He also submits that as the Village Council President is the head of the Village Council in a village, there was no requirement for giving separate notices to each of the Village Council Members, prior to suspending the Village Councils. The learned counsel for the LADC also submits that though no recommendation had been made by the One-Man Inquiry Commissions in all the above cases, for suspension of the Village Councils, the report made by the Commissions into the workings of all the Village Councils had clearly established the fact that the concerned Village Councils had indulged in corrupt practices while handling funds for implementation of various Village Schemes. 9. The learned counsel for the LADC also submits that the submission of the counsel for the writ petitioner in WP(C) No. 66/2020 is not correct inasmuch as, the appointment of the One-Man Inquiry Commissions had been made by the Executive Committee, though the impugned notification was signed by the Local Administrative Officer. He also submits that notice was served upon the Village Council President of Bolisora Village Council. He accordingly prays that the impugned notifications should be upheld as there were no infirmity with the same. 10. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties. 11. The impugned notifications suspending the various Village Councils for 3 months and which are under challenge in all these writ petitions are as follows:- Sr. No Case No. Name of Village Council Impugned Notification No. 1. WP(C) No. 67/2020 Bungtlang South I Notification No. V.11012/5/2019-LADC/LAD dated 05.08.2020 2. WP(C) No. 68/2020 Bungtlang South II Notification No. V.11012/5/2019-LADC/LAD dated 05.08.2020 3. WP(C) No. 69/2020 Karlui I Notification No. V.11012/5/2019-LADC/LAD dated 08.07.2020 4. WP(C) No. 66/2020 Bolisora Notification No. V.11012/5/2019-LADC/LAD dated 07.08.2020 5. WP(C) No. 79/2020 Sangau - III Notification No. V.11012/5/2020-LADC/LAD dated 22.09.2020 12. WP(C) No. 67/2020 Bungtlang South I Notification No. V.11012/5/2019-LADC/LAD dated 05.08.2020 2. WP(C) No. 68/2020 Bungtlang South II Notification No. V.11012/5/2019-LADC/LAD dated 05.08.2020 3. WP(C) No. 69/2020 Karlui I Notification No. V.11012/5/2019-LADC/LAD dated 08.07.2020 4. WP(C) No. 66/2020 Bolisora Notification No. V.11012/5/2019-LADC/LAD dated 07.08.2020 5. WP(C) No. 79/2020 Sangau - III Notification No. V.11012/5/2020-LADC/LAD dated 22.09.2020 12. The facts of the case in brief is that due to reports/allegations of corrupt practices being indulged by the various Village Councils in the handling funds for implementation of various schemes for village development, being submitted to the Executive Committee of the LADC, the LADC constituted One-Man Inquiry Commissions to inquire into the allegations. The One-Man Inquiry Commissions having found that corrupt practices had been indulged by the various Village Councils in respect of utilization of funds for implementation of various Schemes in the village, the One-Man Inquiry Commissions submitted their reports to the Executive Committee of the LADC. Thereafter, show cause notices was sent by the Executive Committee of the LADC only to the Village Council Presidents of the various Village Councils in respect of the allegations made against the Village Councils along with the reports of the One-Man Inquiry Commissions. All the Village Council Presidents pertaining to the above cases, except for the Village Council President of Bolisora Village, submitted their replies to the show cause notices. After the replies had been submitted, the Executive Committee issued the impugned notifications as shown above, suspending the various Village Councils under Section 11 (1) of the 2010 Act. 13. In order to dispose of the present cases, it would be helpful if the relevant provisions of the 2010 Act are reproduced. Accordingly, Section 10 (1) & Section 11 of the 2010 Act are reproduced below:- 10. Dissolution of Village Council. (i) The Executive Committee may, by public notification appoint a Commission consisting of not more than three persons from amongst the officers of the District Council to enquire into the affairs of the Village Council if it is considered that the Village Council is too inefficent or is unable to carry on the Village administration or is acting in a manner prejudicial to the interest of the State of the District Council or is known to have been indulging in corrupt practices in the matter of village administration. The commission shall, after proper enquiry, submit its report of findings along with its recommendation to the Executive Committee within a period of times specified by the Executive Committee. 11. Suspension of Village Council. (i) The Executive Committee may, on the recommendation of the Commission appointed under Section 10 of this Act, order suspension of any Village Council for a period of three months at a time which may be extended for another three months. During the period of suspension the Executive Committee shall assume to itself all the powers and functions of the Village Council and appoint not more than three persons from amongst prominent Villagers as provided by sub-section (4) of section 10 of this Act. (ii) If a Village Council fails to form its Executive Body on expiry of the suspension period, than the Executive Committee may order forthwith dissolution of the Village Council and a by-election shall be held within six months. (iii) The prominent villagers so appointed to assume charge of Village Council may be paid such remuneration as may be decided by the Executive Committee from time to time." 14. A perusal of Section 10 (1) shows that a Commission may be appointed by the Executive Committee by way of public notification. On a perusal of the various impugned notifications issued by the Executive Committee appointing the One-Man Inquiry Commissions, it can be seen that the notifications had been issued to the person concerned, who was appointed to conduct the One-Man Inquiry Commissions and copies given to the Personal Assistant (P.A) to the Chief Executive Member, LADC, Members of District Council, LADC, Village Council President, Village Council Members, Village Council Secretary and a copy of the notification was to be kept in the office order book. In the case of Sangrimawii Vs. LADC & Ors.,2017 1 GLT 545, this Court has held in paragraph No. 11 as follows:- "11. In view of the above, this Court finds that the constitution/ appointment of a One Man Commission by the respondents without there being any public notification, has to be deemed to be bad in law and accordingly the said Commission is held to be in-valid. The records show that the appointment of the One Man Inquiry Commission has been made on a pen written paper. The records show that the appointment of the One Man Inquiry Commission has been made on a pen written paper. The same does not have any memo number, nor does it show that the said document has been made for public circulation. There is no file noting or documents to show that the appointment of the One Man Commission has been publicized in the news media or otherwise for public knowledge or that it is in public domain." 15. In the present case, the appointment orders of the One-Man Inquiry Commissions have memo numbers, though they have not been put in the public domain. Though the 2010 Act does not define or clarify the words "public notification", this Court is of the view that the respondents should have put up the said appointment orders in public domain, in addition to giving copies of the same to the persons mentioned in the foregoing paragraph. There is nothing to show that the notifications appointing the Commissions had been put in public domain which could include putting up the same on the notice boards of the concerned office and in the village. Keeping in view object of Rule 10 and 11 of the 2010 Act and the role to be played by the Commission, this Court is of the view that the appointment orders of the One Man Inquiry Commissions, by way of the various notifications cannot be said to be public notification. 16. A perusal of the various reports made by the One-Man Inquiry Commissions, which has been submitted to the Executive Committee of the LADC, shows that though the One Man Inquiry Commissions have come to a finding that corrupt practices had been indulged by the various Village Councils in the handling of funds, the One-Man Inquiry Commissions have no where recommended the suspension of any of the Village Councils. In the case of Sangrimawii Vs. LADC & Ors. (Supra), this Court has held at paragraph No. 13 as follows:- "13. The finding of the One Man Commission clearly shows that no re-commendation has been made for either suspending or dissolving the Lungtian-1, Village Council, which was being run by the petitioners. In the case of Sangrimawii Vs. LADC & Ors. (Supra), this Court has held at paragraph No. 13 as follows:- "13. The finding of the One Man Commission clearly shows that no re-commendation has been made for either suspending or dissolving the Lungtian-1, Village Council, which was being run by the petitioners. In that view of the matter, this Court finds that the impugned Notification dated 8.11.2010 issued under Section 11(1) of the 2010 Act is illegal and cannot with stand the scrutiny of law as the Village Council could not have been suspended in the absence of a recommendation from the Enquiry Commission. In view of the fact that the Commissions did not recommend suspension of any of the Village Councils in its reports as required under Section 11(i) of the 2010 Act and as per the decision of this Court in Sangrimawii Vs. LADC & Ors. (Supra), this Court finds that the Village Councils could not have been suspended by the Executive Committee of the LADC. 17. On perusing the materials available on record, it is seen that show cause notices had been issued only to the Village Council Presidents of the various Village Councils and reply had been sought for only from the Village Council Presidents. Thus, out of 23 writ petitioners in all the five writ petitions, it is an admitted fact that 4 writ petitioners had been issued notices. Though the Govt. Advocate has submitted that 5 writ petitioners had been issued notices, the same is denied by the counsel for the petitioners in WP(C) No. 66/2020. Thus, even if there is a dispute as to whether 4 or 5 writ petitioners had been given notices by the LADC, it is an admitted fact that all the 23 petitioners were not given notices. The Village Council Members, including the Village Council Presidents, have all been elected to their office though adult sufferage. The Village Council President is appointed only from amongst the elected Village Council Members. As they are all elected Members, each Member of the Village Council has a role to play in the administration of the village and handling of funds. If the rights of an entire Village Council is to be affected to their detriment, it is a requirement of the principle of natural justice that each and every member of the Village Council is given a chance to be heard. If the rights of an entire Village Council is to be affected to their detriment, it is a requirement of the principle of natural justice that each and every member of the Village Council is given a chance to be heard. Otherwise, it amounts to condemning the other Village Council Members, who have not been given any show cause notices, prior to suspension of the Village Council. As such, this Court finds that non issuance of any notice to the other petitioners/Village Council Members, who are not Village Council Presidents, violates the principles of natural justice and the same has caused prejudice to the other Village Council Members. 18. In respect of the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners in WP(C) No. 66/2020 that the appointment of the One-Man Inquiry Commission had not been made by the Executive Committee of the LADC, this Court finds that the Notification dated 27.07.2020 clearly specifies that Mr. A. Zainuntluanga, Asst. Education Officer (P) has been appointed as a One-Man Inquiry Commission by the Executive Committee of the LADC as per the 2010 Act. Just because the notification has been signed by the Local Administrative Officer does not mean that the Executive Committee did not appoint the said One-Man Inquiry Commission. In respect of the submission made by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner in WP(C) No. 66/2020 that no notice was served upon the Village Council President, this Court finds that the same is a disputed question of fact, which would require perusal of the official records. In any event, this Court is of the view that the matter can be decided on the basis of the points already raised in the fore-going paragraph and as such, this Court is not going to delve further into that issue by calling for the official records. 19. Accordingly, in view of the appointment orders of the One-Man Inquiry Commissions not being made by way of a public notification as required under Section 10 (1) of the 2010 Act and no recommendation being made by the One-Man Inquiry Commissions for suspension of the Village Councils as required under Section 11 (1) of the 2010 Act, the impugned notifications are not sustainable in law. Further, there has been violation of the principles of natural justice in respect of the other Village Council Members, as the Village Councils had been suspended, on the basis of the above impugned notifications, without issuing any notice to them. 20. In view of the reasons above, the impugned notifications suspending the Village Councils being unsustainable are set aside. 21. As the suspension of the Village Councils have been found to be illegal, the suspended Village Councils shall be allowed to function immediately as Village Councils and the petitioners shall be paid their remuneration for the period they were under suspension. 22. All the writ petitions are accordingly allowed.