JUDGMENT : NELSON SAILO, J. Heard Mr. Lalpianfela Chawngthu, learned counsel for the petitioners, Ms. Lalnunhlui, learned Government Advocate for the State respondents and Mr. Lalbiaknunga Hnamte for the respondent Nos. 10 & 11. By filing this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the Notification dated 10.07.2024 by which, Thekpui Village Council has been dissolved with effect from the date of a notification in terms of Section 25(1) of the Lushai Hills District (Village Councils) Act, 1953 (V.C Act). Election to the Village Councils in the State of Mizoram was held on 27.08.2020 including Thekpui Village Council and the petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 were elected as members of the Village Council. The petitioner No. 1 is the President of the Village Council while the petitioner No. 2 is the Treasurer. As for the petitioner No. 3, he is appointed as the Secretary of the Village Council in terms of Section 7(2) of the V.C Act. [2.] It is the case of the petitioners that a complaint was submitted by the respondent Nos. 10 & 11 for dissolution of the Village Council to the District Local Administration Officer (respondent No. 5). The respondent No. 5, therefore vide Order dated 21.02.2024 detailed two persons to go and conduct spot verification. The respondent No. 10 is the Vice President of the Village Council, while the respondent No. 11 is the Secretary of ZPM Unit in Champhai. As detailed, the two persons went for spot verification on 23.02.2024 and thereafter submitted the verification report before the respondent No. 5. The respondent No. 5, in turn furnished the verification report to the Director, Local Administration Department (respondent No. 4) on 27.02.2024. The President/Secretary of the Village Council was then given a show-cause notice on 20.06.2024 by the Under Secretary to the Govt. of Mizoram, Local Administration Department asking for showing cause as to why the Village Council should not be dissolved. It was further stated that the show-cause reply should be submitted within 15 days from the date of issuance of the notice. In response, the petitioner No. 1 submitted his show-cause reply on 25.06.2024. Despite the reply, the Village Council came to be dissolved vide the impugned Notification dated 10.07.2024. Aggrieved, the petitioners are before this Court. [3.] Mr. Lalpianfela Chawngthu, learned counsel submits that a copy of the complaint was not given to the petitioners. In response, the petitioner No. 1 submitted his show-cause reply on 25.06.2024. Despite the reply, the Village Council came to be dissolved vide the impugned Notification dated 10.07.2024. Aggrieved, the petitioners are before this Court. [3.] Mr. Lalpianfela Chawngthu, learned counsel submits that a copy of the complaint was not given to the petitioners. Likewise, the spot verification report was also not furnished to them so as to enable them to submit an effective reply and lastly, only the Village Council President/Secretary was given the show- cause notice. He therefore submits that the impugned notification dissolving the Village Council is not sustainable for violation of the principles of natural justice. In support of his submission, the learned counsel relies upon the following authorities:- (1) Pu Dosanga vs. State of Mizoram & Anr., 1990 2 GLJ 97. (2) Chandrama Tewari vs. Union of India (UOI) through General Manager, Eastern Railways, 1987 Suppl. SCC 518. (3) Union of India & Ors. vs. Mohd. Ramzan Khan, 1991 1 SCC 588 . (4) Judgment dated 06.10.2020 passed by this Court in WP(C) No. 79/2020 (C. Vanlalpeka vs. LADC & Ors.) (5) Common Order dated 15.12.2021 passed in WP(C) No. 81, 98 & 82/2021 (Sh. Lalchawiliana & Anr. vs. LADC & 5 Ors.) (6) Order dated 15.11.2023 passed by this Court in WP(C) No. 82/2023 (Sh. Lalthangmawia & Anr. vs. LADC & 9 Ors.) [4.] Ms. Lalnunhlui, learned Government Advocate, on the other hand, submits that the Village Council meeting was not called as per the relevant provisions of the V.C Act, after the election and therefore, has resulted in administrative failure. She submits that having regard to the number of households in the village, it is only apparent that the petitioners were aware about the nature of allegation made against them and the notice not having been given to each of Village Council member would not have made any difference in the report of the respondent No. 5. She submits that as the allegation was not with regard to financial mismanagement but administrative failure, the Treasurer (petitioner No. 2) may not be required to be given a copy of the notice. She submits that as the allegation was not with regard to financial mismanagement but administrative failure, the Treasurer (petitioner No. 2) may not be required to be given a copy of the notice. The learned Government Advocate, further, submits that as per Section 16(3) of the V.C Act, the President shall cause all such orders and notifications to be read out by the Secretary in the meeting of the Village Council and therefore, giving a copy of the notice to all the Village Council members would only be an empty formality. She submits that since there is clearly an admission on the part of the petitioners about the allegation made against the Village Council, no prejudice has been caused to the petitioners for non-supply of the spot verification report or copy of the complaint. The writ petition is therefore without merit and the same should be dismissed. [5.] Mr. Lalbiaknunga Hnamte, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 10 & 11 adopts the argument made by the learned Government Advocate. He further submits that from the recorded statements of the petitioner No. 1, it can be seen that he has admitted of not having informed the Vice President of the Village Council about the meetings and therefore, no prejudice has been caused to the petitioners for non-supply of the enquiry report. The petitioners, therefore, cannot have any legitimate grievance against the respondents and the writ petition being without merit should be dismissed. [6.] I have heard the submissions made by the learned counsels for the rival parties and I have perused the materials available on record. [7.] The grievance projected by the petitioners is that they have not been given a copy of the complaint submitted against them and also a copy of the spot verification report submitted by the detailed persons. Therefore, in absence of the same, the principles of natural justice have been grossly violated. Further, a copy of the show-cause notice has not been given to the petitioner No. 2, who is the Treasurer of the Village Council. Therefore, in absence of the same, the principles of natural justice have been grossly violated. Further, a copy of the show-cause notice has not been given to the petitioner No. 2, who is the Treasurer of the Village Council. In the case of Pu Dosanga (supra), a Division Bench of this Court observed that an elected body like the Village Council is a grass root level democratic institutions and when the same is proposed to be dissolved, although there is no provision for giving an opportunity to be heard before dissolution but a show-cause notice should be given to afford an opportunity to be heard against the proposed action. [8.] In the case of Chandrama Tewari (supra) which was a case of departmental proceedings, the Apex Court held that an enquiry would stand vitiated for violation of principles of natural justice if copies of relevant and materials documents including statement of witnesses recorded in the preliminary enquiry or during investigation are not supplied to the delinquent officer facing enquiry and if such documents are relied on in holding the charges framed against the officer concerned. Although the present case is in respect of the dissolution of a Village Council but in the considered view of this Court, similar principle will be applicable. [9.] There is no dispute to the fact that the petitioners have not been given a copy of the complaint and also the spot verification report. That upon receipt of the spot verification report by the Government, a show-cause notice was issued under the nomenclature President/Secretary of the Village Council and not to each of the petitioners. The purpose of giving show-cause notice is to enable the notice receiver file an appropriate reply on the materials/evidence found against him or her. However, when the spot verification report itself is not furnished, it certainly would not be possible for the notice receiver to effectively response to the show-cause notice. The proviso to Section 25(1) of the V.C Act provides that the Village Council cannot be dissolved unless reasonable opportunity is given to explain as to why the Village Council should not be dissolved. The requirement for reasonable opportunity would mean that the notice receiver should be aware of the complaint and the findings made against him so as to make an appropriate reply. The said opportunity cannot be just a plain formality. The requirement for reasonable opportunity would mean that the notice receiver should be aware of the complaint and the findings made against him so as to make an appropriate reply. The said opportunity cannot be just a plain formality. Therefore, unless the petitioners had been furnished with the complaint and also the spot verification report, the stipulation of the proviso to Section 25(1) of the V.C Act in the considered view of this Court cannot be said to have been satisfied. [10.] Further, as already stated, the petitioner No. 2 had not been given a show-cause notice. She also, being an elected member of the Village Council, has the right to be heard prior to issuance of the impugned dissolution notification. In this connection, the orders passed by this Court in Sh. Vanlalpeka (supra), Sh. Lalchhanliana & Anr. (supra) and Sh. Lalthangmawia & Anr. (supra) may be referred to where this Court held that non-issuance of notice to some members of the Village Council members who are not Village Council Presidents violates the principles of natural justice. [11.] Therefore, upon due consideration, this Court finds that the impugned Notification dated 10.07.2024 is not sustainable for violation of the principles of natural justice and accordingly, the same is set aside. The official respondents are therefore directed to allow the petitioners to function as per their appointment and pay them their respective remuneration as per their entitlement. [12.] With the above observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. No cost.