Research › Search › Judgment

Manipur High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 78 (MAN)

A. Kapani v. State of Manipur

2021-11-15

AHANTHEM BIMOL SINGH

body2021
JUDGMENT Heard Mr. N. Ibotombi, learned senior advocate and Mr. D. Julius Riamei, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners and Mr. N. Kumarjit, learned AG appearing for the State respondents, Mr. L. Shashibhushan, learned advocate appearing for the ADC, Senapati and Mr. HS Paonam, learned senior advocate appearing for the private respondents No. 4-17. [2] In the present writ petitions, the petitioners are assailing the requisition letter dated 10.07.2020 submitted by the 14 members of the Autonomous District Council (ADC), Senapati and meeting notice dated 23.07.2020 issued by the Deputy Commissioner (DC), Senapati for removal of the Chairman and Vice-chairman of the ADC, Senapati as well as for declaring the proceedings of the meeting of the members of the Autonomous District Council, Senapati held on 07.08.2020 for removal of the Chairman and Vice-chairman of the Autonomous District Council, Senapati as null and void and to quash the same. As the issues raised in the present 3 writ petitions are common and interrelated, the said 3 writ petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. [3] The relevant facts of the present cases in a nutshell are that all the writ petitioners were elected as members of the Autonomous District Council of Senapati (herein after referred to as “ADC, Senapati”, for short) in the election held in 2015. Thereafter, the petitioners in W.P. (C) No. 437 of 2020 and W.P. (C) No. 438 of 2020 were elected as Chairman and Vice-chairman respectively of the Autonomous District Council, Senapati. [4] The term of Office of the elected members of the Autonomous District Council, Senapati was to expire on 31.05.2020, however, in pursuance of the State cabinet decision taken in exercise of the power conferred under section 13(1) of the Manipur (Hill Areas) District Council Act, 1971(herein after referred to as the “District Council Act” for short), the Governor of Manipur was pleased to issue an order dated 19.03.2020 extending the term of office of all members of the ADCs, Manipur for a period of 6 months w.e.f. 01.06.2020. [5] 14 members of the Autonomous District Council, Senapati who are the respondents No. 4-17 herein submitted an application dated 10.07.2020 addressed to the Deputy Commissioner, Senapati requesting for convening a meeting for the purpose of consideration of no confidence motion under section 23 (3) of the District Council Act against incumbent Chairman and Vice-chairman of the Autonomous District Council, Senapati. [6] On receiving the said application, the Deputy Commissioner, Senapati wrote a letter dated 16.07.2020 to the Commissioner (TA & HILLS), Government of Manipur informing him about the application submitted by the 14 members of the Autonomous District Council, Senapati for removal of the incumbent Chairman and Vice-chairman and seeking advice as to what further necessary steps is to be taken up. Subsequently, the Deputy Commissioner, Senapati issued a notice dated 23.07.2020 notifying to all council members that a meeting of all members of the Autonomous District Council, Senapati will be held on 07.08.2020 at 11.30 am at the District Council Office Hall, Senapati to consider the requisition dated 10.07.2020 for removal of Chairman and Vice-chairman of the Autonomous District Council, Senapati. Being aggrieved, the Chairman and Vice-chairman of the Autonomous District Council, Senapati filed W.P. (C) No. 437 of 2020 and W.P. (C) No. 438 of 2020 challenging the aforesaid requisition application dated 10.07.2020 and meeting notice dated 23.07.2020. [7] After filing of the aforesaid 2 writ petitions, the Additional Chief Secretary (TA & HILLS), Government of Manipur issued an order dated 05.08.2020 cancelling the impugned meeting notice dated 23.07.2020 issued by the DC, Senapati until further order. However, on the next day of the said order, i.e., on 06.08.2020, the Addl. Chief Secretary (TA & HILLS), Government of Manipur issued another order cancelling the earlier order dated 05.08.2020. Thereafter, the meeting of all members of the DC, Senapati for moving a resolution for removal of the Chairman and Vice chairman of the Autonomous District Council, Senapati was held on 07.08.2020. It will be pertinent to mention here that in view of the subsequent developments which took place and on the prayer made by the petitioners, the aforesaid 2 writ petitions were taken up by this Court on 07.08.2020 as unlisted item and this Court passed and interim order directing that no action should be taken up on the basis of the result of the said no confidence motion. It has been submitted that in compliance with the said interim order passed by this Court, the proceedings of the said meeting of the Autonomous District Council, Senapati are kept under sealed cover. [8] In view of the aforesaid order dated 05.08.2020 issued by the Addl. It has been submitted that in compliance with the said interim order passed by this Court, the proceedings of the said meeting of the Autonomous District Council, Senapati are kept under sealed cover. [8] In view of the aforesaid order dated 05.08.2020 issued by the Addl. Chief Secretary (TA & HILLS), Government of Manipur cancelling the meeting notice dated 23.07.2020 issued by the DC, Senapati, 5 members of the Autonomous District Council, Senapati, who are the writ petitioners in W.P. (C) No. 445 of 2020, did not participate in the meeting of the members of the Autonomous District Council, Senapati held on 07.08.2020 as they have no knowledge about the subsequent order dated 06.08.2020 issued by the Addl. Chief Secretary (Ta & HILLS), Government of Manipur cancelling the earlier order dated 05.08.2020. Feeling aggrieved, the said 5 members of the Autonomous District Council, Senapati filed W.P. (C) No. 445 of 2020 assailing the proceedings of the aforesaid meeting held on 07.08.2020 and for declaring the same as null and void. [9] Requisition notice dated 10.07.2020 and meeting notice dated 23.07.2020 have been challenged only on the ground that the said requisition notice having been not delivered in person to the Deputy Commissioner, Senapati by one of the signatories to the notice as mandated under Rule 7 of the Manipur (Hill Areas) District Council Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as “District Council Rules”, for short), the said requisition notice cannot be acted upon and accordingly, the impugned meeting notice dated 23.07.2020 is not sustainable in the eye of law. The proceedings of the meeting for moving a resolution for removal of the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Autonomous District Council (ADC), Senapati held on 07.08.2020 had been challenged on the ground that no notice for holding such a meeting was given to any of the petitioners in W.P. (C) No. 445 of 2020. [10] Mr. N. Ibotombi, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P. (C) No. 437 of 2020 and W.P. (C) No. 438 of 2020, by drawing the attention of this Court to the provisions of Rule 7 of the District Council Rules submitted that the notice for moving a resolution for removal of Chairman/Vice-Chairman from the Office of the District Council, Senapati should be delivered in-person to the Deputy Commissioner concerned by one of the signatories to the said notice. The provisions of Rule 7 of the District Council Rules are as under:- “7. Delivery of notice for moving a resolution for removal of Chairman:- A notice in writing of the intention to move a resolution for the removal of the Chairman from his office referred to in sub-section (2) of section 23 of the Act shall be delivered in person to the Deputy Commissioner concerned by one of the signatories to the notice, and shall contain a brief statement of the reasons for moving the resolution. Provisions of sections 23 (3) of the Act shall be followed.” [11] It has been submitted by Mr. N. Ibotombi, learned senior counsel that in the present case there is no record to show that the notice for moving a resolution for removal of the petitioners from their office had been delivered in-person to the Deputy Commissioner, Senapati by one of the signatories to the said notice and accordingly, the said notice/requisition letter dated 10.07.2020 and meeting notice dated 23.07.2020 issued by the DC, Senapati are liable to be quashed as the same is ultra vires the mandatory provisions of Rule 7 of the District Council Rules. [12] The learned senior counsel also submitted that none of the respondents specifically denied the categorical statement made by the petitioners in Paragraph 11 of their writ petitions that there was no record to show that the notice for moving the no confidence motion against the petitioners had been delivered in-person to the DC, Senapati by one of the signatories to the notice. All that have been said by DC, Senapati in his counter affidavit and the letter dated 17.08.2020 of the former DC, Senapati is that the notice for moving the no confidence motion was received by the then Deputy Commissioner, Senapati from some/few of the elected members (signatories) of the Autonomous District Council, Senapati on 10.07.2020. It has further been submitted that even though, some of the private respondents stated in their counter affidavit that the notice/requisition under section 23 (3) of the District Council Act for removal of the petitioners from their Office was delivered to the DC, Senapati personally by 2 (two) of the signatories in the said notice/requisition, the name of the persons who delivered the said notice/requisition are not disclosed or mention in their counter affidavit. It has accordingly been submitted that if the said notice/requisition was really delivered to the DC, Senapati personally by 2 (two) of the signatories as stated by some of the private respondents, they ought to have mention the name of those persons who delivered the requisition to clear any doubt. The learned senior counsel further submitted that in fact and in truth, there is no record at all to show that the said notice/requisition under section 23 (3) of the District Council Act was delivered personally to the DC, Senapati by any of the signatories and accordingly, the aforesaid notice dated 10.07.2020 and the meeting notice dated 23.07.2020 are liable to be quashed and set aside as the same are ultra vires the provisions of Rule 7 of the District Council Rules. In support of his contentions the learned senior counsel has placed reliance on the following judgments and orders passed by this Court:- (1) Judgment and order dated 10.10.2017 passed in the case of “Tuntanbou Guangta v. State of Manipur and Others” reported in (2017) 5 NEJ 121 (Man.) : 2017 Legal Eagle (Manipur) 105 (Paragraphs 83-84, 97- 98, 101-102 and 110-111); (2) Judgment and order dated 05.06.2018 passed in W.P. (C) No. 366/2018 and W.P. (C) 393/2018 (Paragraph 11). [13] Mr. D. Julius Riamei, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P. (C) No. 445 of 2020 submitted that the 14 (fourteen) members of the Autonomous District Council (ADC), Senapati submitted a notice/requisition dated 10.07.2020 to the DC, Senapati requesting for convening a meeting for the purpose of consideration of no confidence motion under section 23 (3) of the Autonomous District Council (ADC), Act against the Chairman and Vice- Chairman of the ADC, Senapati. On receiving the said notice/requisition, the DC, Senapati issued a notice dated 23.07.2020 notifying that a meeting of all the members of the ADC, Senapati will be held on 07.08.2020 at 11.30 a.m. at the District Council, Senapati to consider the requisition dated 10.07.2020 for removal of the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Autonomous District Council (ADC), Senapati. [14] Subsequently, the Addl. Chief Secretary (TA & Hills), Government of Manipur, issued an order dated 05.08.2020, just 2 (two) days prior to the holding of the schedule meeting, cancelling the meeting notice dated 23.07.2020 issued by the DC, Senapati on account of the worsening spread of Covid-19 global pandemic in the State. [14] Subsequently, the Addl. Chief Secretary (TA & Hills), Government of Manipur, issued an order dated 05.08.2020, just 2 (two) days prior to the holding of the schedule meeting, cancelling the meeting notice dated 23.07.2020 issued by the DC, Senapati on account of the worsening spread of Covid-19 global pandemic in the State. On having knowledge of the cancellation of the schedule meeting by the aforesaid order dated 05.08.2020 issued by the Addl. Chief Secretary (TA & Hills), Government of Manipur, the petitioners were under the impression that the meeting for moving the no confidence motion against Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Autonomous District Council (ADC), Senapati will not be held on 07.08.2020 as schedule earlier and accordingly, they do not attend the said meeting. But quite surprisingly, they came to learn later on that the Addl. Chief Secretary (TA & Hills), Government of Manipur issued another order dated 06.08.2020 cancelling the earlier Government order dated 05.08.2020 and directing the DC, Senapati to maintain social distancing norms provided in the SOP issued by the Government of Manipur at the time of holding the meeting for no confidence motion. After issuance of the order dated 06.08.2020, the meeting for no confidence motion was held on 07.08.2020 as schedule earlier in the absence of many members of the Autonomous District Council (ADC), Senapati including the petitioners. [15] Mr. D. Julius Riamei, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners strenuously submitted that the petitioners were not given any notice or information about the issuance of the order dated 06.08.2020 and as they have no knowledge about the issuance of the said order, they have been deprived of their valuable right to attend the said meeting and cast their vote in a most unreasonable and arbitrary manner. Accordingly, the learned counsel submitted that the proceedings of the meeting held on 07.08.2020 deserves to be quashed and set aside. [16] Mr. D. Julius Riamei, learned counsel further submitted that the order dated 06.08.2020 was issued only on 07.08.2020 just a few hours before the meeting commence with an ulterior motive and to prevent the petitioners and others elected members of the Autonomous District Council (ADC), Senapati, from participating in the said meeting and casting their votes. [16] Mr. D. Julius Riamei, learned counsel further submitted that the order dated 06.08.2020 was issued only on 07.08.2020 just a few hours before the meeting commence with an ulterior motive and to prevent the petitioners and others elected members of the Autonomous District Council (ADC), Senapati, from participating in the said meeting and casting their votes. It has also been submitted that the manner in which the said meeting had been conducted is very much arbitrary and the proceedings of the said meeting are not only ultra vires the provisions of section 23 (3) of the ADC Act but the same are also in complete violation of the Rule of natural justice, thereby, resulting in depriving the valuable rights of the petitioners and other elected members of the Autonomous District Council (ADC), Senapati. In view of the above, it has been strenuously submitted that the impugned proceedings of the Autonomous District Council (ADC) meeting held on 07.08.2020 deserves to be quashed and set aside. [17] It has lastly been submitted by Mr. D Julius Riamei, learned counsel, that the statements made by the writ petitioners in their writ petition are not denied or controverted by any of the respondents and accordingly, the statements made by the petitioners are taken to be admitted by the respondents and their writ petition deserves to be allowed. In support of his contentions the learned counsel placed reliance on the following judgment of the Apex court reported in:- (1) (1993) Supp (4) SCC 46 : 1993 Legal Eagle (SC) 599 “Naseem Bano (Smt) v. State of U.P. and Others” (Para 9); (2) (2010) 10 SCC 408 : 2010 Legal Eagle (SC) 762 “State of Assam v. Union of India and Others” (Para 18); (3) (2016) 1 SCC 207 : 2015 Legal Eagle (SC) 641 “Standard Chartered Bank v. Andhra Bank Financial Services Limited and Others” (Para 31). [18] Mr. N. Kumarjit, learned A.G. appearing for the State respondents in all the writ petitions submitted that a notice dated 10.07.2020 under section 23 (3) of the ADC Act for removal of the incumbent Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Autonomous District Council (ADC) was submitted by 14 (fourteen) elected members of the Autonomous District Council (ADC), Senapati and the same was received by the DC, Senapati personally from some of the signatories in the said notice. On receiving the said notice, the DC, Senapati issued a notice dated 23.07.2020 notifying to all council members that a meeting of all members of the ADC, Senapati will be held on 07.08.2020 at 11.30 a.m. at the District Council Office Hall, Senapati to consider the notice dated 10.07.2020 for removal of the Chairman and Vice-Chairman and requesting all concern to attend the meeting positively. [19] Subsequently, in view of the worsening spread of covid-19 in the State of Manipur, the Addl. Chief Secretary (TA & Hills), Government of Manipur issued an order dated 05.08.2020 cancelling the meeting notice dated 23.07.2020 issued earlier by the DC, Senapati. Thereafter, on 06.08.2020, i.e., just on the next day of issuing the earlier cancellation order dated 05.08.2020, the Addl. Chief Secretary (TA & Hills), Government of Manipur issued another order cancelling the earlier Government order dated 05.08.2020 and the meeting was held on 07.08.2020 as scheduled earlier. In the said meeting there was clear majority supporting the removal of the incumbent Chairman and Vice-Chairman. [20] Controverting the arguments advanced by Mr. N. Ibotombi, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P. (C) No. 437 of 2020 and W.P. (C) No. 438 of 2020, it has been submitted by the learned AG that the notice dated 10.07.2020 under section 23 (3) of the ADC Act was received personally by the DC, Senapati from some of the signatories in the said notice and this factum is clearly stated in the counter affidavit filed by the Deputy Commissioner and also in the letter of the incumbent who was earlier holding the post of DC, Senapati. In view of the above, there is no questing of violating the provisions of Rule 7 of the District Council Rules as wrongly alleged by the petitioners. [21] It has also been submitted by the learned A.G. that the provisions under Rule 7 of the District Council Rules are in the nature of procedural requirements and the same are not mandatory but they are only directory. The learned A.G. further submitted that the petitioners have failed to point out any prejudice cause to them resulting from non-compliance of the procedural requirements under Rule 7 of the District Council Rules. In view of the above, it has been submitted that the present writ petitions are without any merit and the same deserves to be dismissed. The learned A.G. further submitted that the petitioners have failed to point out any prejudice cause to them resulting from non-compliance of the procedural requirements under Rule 7 of the District Council Rules. In view of the above, it has been submitted that the present writ petitions are without any merit and the same deserves to be dismissed. [22] It has also been submitted that as there was clear majority supporting the removal of the incumbent Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Autonomous District Council (ADC), Senapati in the no confidence motion, the democratic process enshrined under the constitution cannot be curtailed or stop on the basis of mere allegation of non-compliance of the procedural requirements provided under Rule 7 of the District Council Rules. In support of his contention, the learned A.G. has relied on the following judgments and orders:- 1. 2006 (4) GLT 460 : 2006 Legal Eagle (GAU) 811 “Mosira Bibi v. State of Assam.” (Paragraphs 10, 12, 13& 15); 2. 2006 (1) GLT 46 : 2005 Legal Eagle (GAU) 591 “Mumtaz Rana Laskar v. State of Assam.” (Paragraphs 2, 8, 9 & 13-26); 3. Order dated 07.02.2019 passed by the Allahabad High Court in Writ-C No. 3846/2019 (Paragraphs 2, 21-23); 4. Order dated 02.02.2015 passed by the Chhattisgarh High Court in WP (227) No. 791/2013 (Paragraphs 2, 6, 7 & 12); 5. Order dated 15.09.2009 passed by the Karnataka High Court in W.P. (C) Nos. 27171-27172/2009 (Paragraphs 1, 2, 6 & 7); 6. (2010) 12 SCC 1 : 2010 Legal Eagle (SC) 324 “Bhanumati & Others v. State of UP & Others.” (Paragraphs 32, 38, 39, 58-67). [23] In answer to the contentions advanced by Mr. D. Julius Riamei, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P. (C) No. 445 of 2020, it has been submitted by the learned Advocate General that the 5 (five) petitioners in the present writ petitions are not signatories in the notice dated 10.07.2020 and they belong to the minority group. It has further been submitted that the present writ petitioners have already been informed about fixing of the notice by the Deputy Commissioner, Senapati in his notice dated 23.07.2020 and it is not necessary for the State Government to communicate to the petitioners about the issuance of the order dated 06.08.2020. It has further been submitted that the present writ petitioners have already been informed about fixing of the notice by the Deputy Commissioner, Senapati in his notice dated 23.07.2020 and it is not necessary for the State Government to communicate to the petitioners about the issuance of the order dated 06.08.2020. The learned Advocate General further pointed out that the meeting for moving the no confidence motion against the incumbent Chairman and Vice- Chairman had already been held on 07.08.2020 as schedule earlier and in the said meeting there was clear majority supporting the removal of the Chairman and Vice-Chairman. In view of the above, the learned Advocate General submitted that as the present 5 (five) writ petitioners belong to the minority group, no difference would have been made in the result of the no confidence motion, even if, the present writ petitioners were present in the meeting. The learned Advocate General accordingly, submitted that the present writ petition is devoid of merit and the same deserves to be dismissed. [24] Mr. L. Shashibhushan, learned counsel appearing for the Autonomous District Council submitted that the meeting notice dated 23.07.2020 issued by the DC, Senapati was communicated to the Executive Officer, Autonomous District Council, Senapati only on 27.07.2020 and on receipt of the said meeting notice, the same was promptly served to the members of the Autonomous District Council, Senapati on 28.07.2020 and there was no delay or lapses on the part of the officials of the Autonomous District Council, Senapati in communicating the meeting notice to the elected members of the Autonomous District Council, Senapati. [25] Mr. H.S. Paonam, learned senior counsel appearing for some of the private respondents in W.P. (C) No. 437 of 2020 and W.P. (C) No. 438 of 2020 reiterated and endorsed the submission advanced by the learned Advocate General Manipur. The learned senior counsel further submitted that in paragraph 5 of the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the respondents No. 12 & 13, it has been clearly stated that the notice under section 23 (3) of the ADC Act was delivered to the Deputy Commissioner, Senapati in-person by 2 (two) of the signatories in the said notice and accordingly, there is no question of violating the procedural requirements as provided under Rule 7 of the District Council Rules. In view of the above, it has been submitted by the learned senior counsel that the judgments and orders passed by this Court and relied on by Mr. N. Ibotombi, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners are not applicable in the present case, inasmuch as, in the said judgments a clear finding had been given about the non-compliance of the provisions of Rule 7 of the District Council Rules whereas in the facts and circumstances of the present case, it cannot be said that there has been any infraction of the provisions of Rule 7 of the District Council Rules. [26] In W.P. (C) No. 437 of 2020 and W.P. (C) No. 438 of 2020, the only stand of the petitioners is that there is no record to show that the notice for moving a resolution for removal of the petitioners from the office of Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Autonomous District Council, Senapati had been delivered in-person to the Deputy Commissioner, Senapati by one of the signatories to the notice and, as such, there has been infraction of the provision of Rule 7 of the District Council Rules and accordingly, the impugned requisition notice as well as the meeting notice are liable to be quashed and set aside. On the other hand, the stand of the respondents is that the notice under section 23 (3) of the District Council Act for removal of the Chairman and Vice-Chairman had been delivered to the Deputy Commissioner, Senapati in-person by 2 (two) of the signatories to the said notice and as such, no question of violating the provisions of Rule 7 of the District Council Rules arises and the plea taken by the writ petitioners are without any basis. [27] After hearing the submissions advanced by the counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the record of the present cases, this Court is of the considered view that whether the aforesaid notice under section 23 (3) of the District Council Act was delivered in-person to the Deputy Commissioner, Senapati or not by any of the signatories is a disputed question of fact and on the basis of the materials available on record, this Court cannot come to a finding to decide the dispute conclusively. In view of the above, this Court cannot upheld the contentions raised by the petitioners that the notice under section 23(3) of the District Council Act for moving a resolution for removal of the Chairman and Vice-Chairman was not delivered in-person to the Deputy Commissioner, Senapati by one of the signatories to the notice. Accordingly, this Court cannot interfere with the impugned notice dated 10.07.2020 and the impugned election notice dated 23.07.2020 solely on the basis of the contentions raised by the petitioners in their writ petition and by ignoring the statements made by the respondents in their counter affidavits and documents annexed thereto that the said notice was delivered to the Deputy Commissioner, Senapati in-person by 2 (two) of the signatories to the said notice. In the result, W.P. (C) No. 437 of 2020 and W.P. (C) No. 438 of 2020 fails. [28] In so far as the writ petition No. 445 of 2020 is concerned, it is undisputedly on record that a notice dated 23.07.2020 was issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Senapati notifying to all the council members of the ADC, Senapati that a meeting will be held on 07.08.2020 to consider the no confidence motion against the Chairman and Vice-Chairman. Subsequently, the said meeting notice was cancelled by an order dated 05.08.2020 issued by the Addl. Chief Secretary (TA & Hills), Government of Manipur just 2 (two) days prior to holding of the said notice. Thereafter, on the next day, i.e., on 06.08.2020 another order was issued by the Addl. Chief Secretary, (TA & Hills), Government of Manipur cancelling his earlier order dated 05.08.2020. The respondents have not denied the statements of the petitioners that they were not informed of the existence or issuance of the subsequent order dated 06.08.2020 and that they were under the impression that the meeting schedule to be held on 07.08.2020 had been cancelled as per order dated 05.08.2020 and that they have been deprived of their valuable right to attend the said meeting and cast their vote by the arbitrary and unreasonable acts of the State Government. All that have been submitted on behalf of the State respondents is that the petitioners have prior knowledge about the meeting schedule to be held on 07.08.2020 and it is not necessary to communicate the order dated 06.08.2020 and that the petitioners belong to minority group and no difference would have been made even if they participated in the said meeting since out of 24 (twenty four) members, 15 (fifteen) members have voted supporting the removal of the Chairman and Vice-Chairman. [29] Section 23 (3) of the District Council Act mandates that a notice in writing of the intention to move a resolution referred to in sub-section (2) signed by not less than one-third of the total membership of the council together with a copy of the proposed resolution shall be delivered to the Deputy Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner shall, after giving not less than 15 (fifteen) days’ notice thereon, convene for consideration of the resolution a meeting of the council to be held in the office of the council. On careful consideration of the rival submissions advanced by the parties in the present case and on perusal of the records, this Court finds that even though the Deputy Commissioner, Senapati issued a notice dated 23.07.2020 for convening a meeting as contemplated under section 23 (3) of the District Council Act pursuant to the requisition made by 14 members, the said notice was subsequently cancelled by the Government by an order dated 05.08.2020. Thereafter, quite surprisingly on the next day, i.e., on 06.08.2020 another order was issued by the State Government cancelling the earlier order dated 05.08.2020. However, the issuance of the subsequent order dated 06.08.2020 was never brought to the notice of some of the elected members of the Autonomous District Council, Senapati including the present petitioners and because of such lapses on the part of the State Government, the petitioners had been deprived of their valuable right to participate in the said meeting and to cast their vote. Such action of the State Government is not only arbitrary but also violates the provisions of section 23 (3) of the District Council Act. In the result, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the meeting of the members of the Autonomous District Council, Senapati held on 07.08.2020 is null and void and accordingly, the proceeding of the said meeting is hereby quashed and set aside. In the result, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the meeting of the members of the Autonomous District Council, Senapati held on 07.08.2020 is null and void and accordingly, the proceeding of the said meeting is hereby quashed and set aside. [30] In view of the forgoing discussions and findings, W.P. (C) No. 437 of 2020 and W.P. (C) No. 438 of 2020 is hereby dismissed as being devoid of merit and W.P. (C) No. 445 of 2020 is allowed to the extent given hereinabove. However, parties are to bear their own costs. Registry is directed to return back the original receipt register for the year 2020 and issue register for the year 2019-2020 submitted earlier by the learned Advocate General.