JUDGMENT : NELSON SAILO, J. Heard Mr. Lalpianfela Chawngthu, learned counsel for the petitioners, Ms. Caroline K Lungawipuii, learned Government Advocate for the State respondents and Mr. Lalbiaknunga Hnamte, learned counsel for the private respondents. By filing this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the Notification dated 26.07.2024 by which, Hnahlan Village Council has been dissolved by the State respondents in exercise with the powers conferred by Section 25(1) of the Lushai Hills District (Village Councils) Act, 1953 (V.C Act). It is the case of the petitioners that except for petitioner No. 6, they were elected as members of the Hnahlan Village Council on 27.08.2020. The petitioner No. 1 is the President, the petitioner No. 2 is the Vice President, petitioner No. 3 is the Treasurer, while the petitioner Nos. 4 & 5 is members of the Village Council. As for petitioner No. 6, he is the Secretary of the Village Council appointed in terms of Section 7(2) of the V.C Act. [2.] According to the petitioners, a complaint was submitted on 27.02.2024 by the private respondent Nos. 7 to 15 against the petitioners alleging illegal allotment of lands and constitution of fake Land Committee before the District Local Administration Officer (respondent No. 5). The respondent Nos. 9 to 15 are Presidents of different ZPM Units of Hnahlan village while the respondent No. 16 is the President of ZPM, Champhai North Block-II. Pursuant to the submission of the complaint, the respondent No. 5 ordered for a spot verification on 26.04.2024 by 4 (four) Officials vide Order dated 23.04.2024. Spot verification was accordingly conducted on the stipulated date and therefore, the spot verification report was submitted to the respondent No. 5 and thereafter to the respondent No. 4 vide Letter dated 29.04.2024. Upon receipt of the spot verification, a show-cause notice was issued to the President/Secretary of the Village Council on 18.16.2024 stating that a reply should be submitted in writing within a period of 15 days from the date of issuance of a letter why Hnahlan Village Council should not be dissolved. The petitioner No. 1, on 26.06.2024, submitted the show-cause reply to the Under Secretary to the Govt. of Mizoram, Local Administration Department but vide the impugned Notification dated 26.07.2024, Hnahlan Village Council came to be dissolved with effect from the date of the notification. Being aggrieved, the petitioners are before this Court. [3.] Mr. The petitioner No. 1, on 26.06.2024, submitted the show-cause reply to the Under Secretary to the Govt. of Mizoram, Local Administration Department but vide the impugned Notification dated 26.07.2024, Hnahlan Village Council came to be dissolved with effect from the date of the notification. Being aggrieved, the petitioners are before this Court. [3.] Mr. Lapianfela Chawngthu, learned counsel submits that prior to the issuance of the impugned notification dissolving the Village Council, the petitioners were not given a copy of the complaint submitted against them on 27.02.2024 and also the spot verification report submitted by the detailed officers. The show-cause notice dated 18.06.2024, without a copy of the spot verification report and the complaint, was given only to the President/Secretary of the Village Council and therefore, the impugned notification dissolving the Village Council is in clear violation of the principles of natural justice and therefore should be set aside. [4.] 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.) [5.] Ms. Caroline K Lungawipuii, learned Government Advocate, on the other hand, submits that from the explanation submitted by the petitioner No. 1 to the show-cause notice dated 18.06.2024, it can be seen that the petitioner No. 1 has admitted that the allotment of land to certain individuals have been recommended without the knowledge and approval of the other members of the Village Council. In view of such clear admission, no prejudice has been caused to the petitioners for non-furnishing of the complaint and the spot verification report. She further submits that there is no provision in the V.C Act which provides that the spot verification report should be given to the persons against whom a complaint has been submitted. In view of such clear admission, no prejudice has been caused to the petitioners for non-furnishing of the complaint and the spot verification report. She further submits that there is no provision in the V.C Act which provides that the spot verification report should be given to the persons against whom a complaint has been submitted. She, therefore, submits that the writ petitioners cannot have any legitimate grievance and the writ petition should be dismissed. [6.] Mr. Lalbiaknunga Hnamte, learned counsel for the private respondents adopts the argument made by the learned Government Advocate and submits that the petitioner No. 1 as the Village Council President clearly admitted about the irregularities committed by him alongwith the Treasurer and without the knowledge of the other Village Council members. This goes to show that the Village Council is aware of the nature of the allegations and therefore, no prejudice has been caused to them with the dissolution of the Village Council. He also submits that the reply given by the petitioner No. 1 is not only on behalf of himself but on behalf of all the Village Council members. As such, the petitioners cannot be said to have any legitimate grievance and the writ petition being devoid of merit should be dismissed. [7.] I have heard the submissions made by the learned counsels for the rival parties and I have perused the materials available on record. [8.] There is no dispute to the fact that a copy of the complaint submitted by the private respondents had not been given to the petitioners. Likewise, a copy of the spot verification report made by the detailed persons had also not been given to the petitioners. It is further seen that the show-cause notice has been addressed to the President/Secretary of the Village Council only, whereas the petitioner Nos. 1 to 5 are elected members of the Village Council while the petitioner No. 6 is the appointed Secretary of the Village Council. It is also stated at the bar that there are two other elected members in the Village Council but they belong to a different political party and therefore they are not included as petitioners in the instant case. It is also stated at the bar that there are two other elected members in the Village Council but they belong to a different political party and therefore they are not included as petitioners in the instant case. It is seen that against the show-cause notice dated 18.06.2024, the petitioner No. 1, by submitting a reply on 26.06.2024, had admitted about the irregularities alleged to have been committed and that he and the Treasurer of the Village Council were responsible. With such an admission, it would appear that no prejudice can be said to have been caused for non-supply of a copy of the complaint and the spot verification report. However, the fact remains that in view of the irregularities found instead of drawing up a proceeding against the individual(s) responsible, the entire Village Council has been dissolved by the State respondents. Therefore, it cannot but be seen that the other elected members of the Village Council have been denied the opportunity to show-cause as to why the Village Council should not be dissolved. The proviso to Section 23(1) of the V.C Act cannot be regarded as a mere formality. Giving of reasonable opportunity to explain as to why a Village Council should not be dissolved would mean an opportunity given by furnishing the complaint as well as the verification report, which is made against the complaint. Without providing such materials, one cannot expect an effective reply to be made by the notice receiver. [9.] 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. [10.] 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. 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. [10.] 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. 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. [11.] Further, as already stated, the petitioner Nos. 2, 3, 4 & 5 were not given the show-cause notice. As they too are elected members of the Village Council, they have 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. [12.] Therefore, upon due consideration, this Court finds that the impugned notification dissolving the Village Council cannot be sustained for violation of the principles of natural justice and accordingly, the impugned Notification dated 26.07.2024 is hereby set aside. [12.] Therefore, upon due consideration, this Court finds that the impugned notification dissolving the Village Council cannot be sustained for violation of the principles of natural justice and accordingly, the impugned Notification dated 26.07.2024 is hereby set aside. The official respondents are directed to allow the petitioners to function as per their appointment and they should be paid their respective remuneration as per their entitlement. [13.] With the above observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. No cost.