JUDGEMENT : Heard Mr. C. Lalramzauva, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Stephen Lalbuatsaiha, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Samuel Vanlalhriata Chhangte, learned Addl. Advocate General, Mizoram for the respondents. Both the writ petition as well as the Interlocutory Application are being disposed of by this Order. [2.] By filing the instant writ petition, the two (2) petitioners have challenged the Notifications dated 20.11.2024 and 21.11.2024 (Annexure - 5 & 6 respectively), by which the term of the existing Village Councils in the State of Mizoram excluding the Village Councils under the three (3) Autonomous District Councils have been shortened and made to expire on 19.02.2025. The petitioners are elected members to the East Lungdar Village Council. The petitioner No. 1 is the President while the petitioner No. 2 is the Treasurer of the said Village Council. [3.] It may be stated herein that the impugned Notification dated 20.11.2024 was challenged by the All Mizoram Village Councils Association represented by its President and 2 others by filing WP(C) No. 139/2024. However, the said Notification was superseded by the second Notification dated 21.11.2024 which came to the knowledge of the petitioners from the caveat filed by the State. Accordingly, the said writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file afresh, if so advised, vide Order dated 12.12.2024. [4.] Thereafter, the same petitioners filed another writ petition i.e., WP(C) No. 146/2024 which however was disposed of again as withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh writ petition if so advised vide Order dated 13.01.2025. The reason for withdrawal of the said writ petition was due to the fact that the petitioner association is not a registered association and therefore, the writ petition filed by an unregistered association was not accepted by this Court. Pursuant to the withdrawal of the said writ petition, the present two (2) writ petitioners who are the elected members of the East Lungdar Village Council have filed the instant writ petition. [5.] Mr. C. Lalramzuava, learned Senior Counsel submits that the election of the Village Councils in Mizoram was held on 27.08.2020 wherein, seven (7) members including the writ petitioners were elected as East Lungdar Village Council Member. The first meeting of the Executive Body of the Village Council was convened on 04.09.2020 and the term of five (5) years is to expire only in the month of September, 2025. The first meeting of the Executive Body of the Village Council was convened on 04.09.2020 and the term of five (5) years is to expire only in the month of September, 2025. However, the term of the Village Councils in Mizoram excluding Autonomous District Council areas have been shortened by over six (6) months by the State respondents through the two (2) impugned Notifications for reasons not known to the petitioners. The learned Senior Counsel submits that from a perusal of the two (2) Notifications, one cannot make out the reason or basis for shortening the term of the Village Councils by over six (6) months. He submits that Section 5 of the Lushai Hills District (Village Councils) Act, 1953 (V.C Act) as amended no doubt empowers the State Government to extend or shorten the life of a Village Council for such periods not exceeding 18 months in the aggregate but however, the said power cannot be arbitrarily exercised and for no rhyme or reason. He submits that a Village Council is an elected body and a democratic institution at the grass root and therefore, the term of an elected body cannot be shortened in the manner it has been done through the two (2) impugned Notifications. He therefore submits that the impugned Notifications should be set aside and the Village Councils concerned be allowed to complete its five (5) year tenure as per the V.C Act. [6.] The learned Senior Counsel further submits that the rights of the petitioners as guaranteed under Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India has been grossly violated by the respondents. He submits that prior to issuance of the impugned Notifications, those who are likely to be affected such as the writ petitioners should have been given the opportunity to be heard. He submits that although such provision may not be mentioned in the V.C Act but nevertheless, the same has to be read into it since the impugned action violates the Fundamental Rights of the petitioners. The learned Senior Counsel also submits that the State respondents have totally ignored the doctrine of legitimate expectation. He submits that the petitioners have every right to expect that they will remain as elected Village Council members for the full tenure of five (5) years unless the same is dissolved in accordance with law. The learned Senior Counsel also submits that the State respondents have totally ignored the doctrine of legitimate expectation. He submits that the petitioners have every right to expect that they will remain as elected Village Council members for the full tenure of five (5) years unless the same is dissolved in accordance with law. Therefore, by the impugned Notifications, the State respondents have deprived the petitioners of their legitimate expectations to complete their term of five (5) years. Therefore, even on this count, the impugned Notifications cannot be sustained and should be set aside. In support of his submissions, the learned Senior Counsel has relied upon the following authorities:- (1) Scheduled Caste and Weaker Section Welfare Association (REGD.) & Anr. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. (1991) 2 SCC 604 . (2) Navjyoti Coop. Group Housing Society & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. (1992) 4 SCC 477 (3) J. Ashoka Vs. University of Agricultural Sciences & Ors. (2017) 2 SCC 609 (4) Dipak Babaria & Anr. Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. (2014) 3 SCC 502 (5) State of Punjab Vs. Bandeep Singh & Ors. (2016) 1 SCC 724 (6) Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr. Vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi & Ors. (1978) 1 SCC 405 (7) G. Vallikumar Vs. Andhra Education Society & Ors. (2010) 2 SCC 497 (8) Nabam Rebia And Bamang Felix Vs. Deputy Speaker, Arunachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly And Others (2016) 8 SCC 1 (9) State of Uttaranchal & Anr. Vs. Sunil Kumar Vaish & Ors. (2011) 8 SCC 670 and (10) Pu Dosanga Vs. State of Mizoram & Ors. 1990 (2) GLT 97 [7.] Mr. C. Lalramzauva, learned Senior Counsel by referring to I.A (Civil) No. 12/2025 submits that 122 persons who are also the elected members of different Village Councils in the State and who are also affected by the two (2) impugned Notifications challenged in the writ petition have filed the application seeking their impleadment as petitioner Nos. 3 to 124 in the writ petition. He submits that all the Village Councils concerned to which the applicants belong have made a resolution to the effect that they support the challenged made to the two (2) impugned Notifications and they would like to be impleaded as petitioners in the writ petition. 3 to 124 in the writ petition. He submits that all the Village Councils concerned to which the applicants belong have made a resolution to the effect that they support the challenged made to the two (2) impugned Notifications and they would like to be impleaded as petitioners in the writ petition. He therefore submits that the application made by the applicants under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) may be allowed as prayed for. [8.] Mr. Samuel Vanlalhriata Chhangte, learned Addl. Advocate General on the other hand submits that the Notification dated 21.11.2024 impugned by the petitioners is not in violation of the provisions of Article 166 of the Constitution of India as alleged by the petitioners since the same has been issued in the name of the Governor of the State. He submits that in fact, the said Notification has been issued strictly in terms of Section 5 of the V.C Act. Referring to Section 5 of the V.C Act, the learned Addl. Advocate General submits that the said provision nowhere provides that the Village Councils members should be given an opportunity of hearing prior to taking a decision to extend or shorten the term of the Village Council. Such pre-condition is available only in respect of dissolution of the Village Council under Section 25 of the V.C Act. He submits that Section 5 of the V.C Act empowers the Government to extend or shorten the term of the Village Council for such periods not exceeding 18 months in the aggregate and therefore, there is nothing wrong with the impugned Notifications which has been issued in accordance with the said provision. The learned Addl. Advocate General submits that the State Election Commission on 16.01.2025 has notified the election of the Village Councils in the State of Mizoram and has also given the schedule of dates. That the Model Code of Conduct has also been put in force with effect from 16.01.2025. He therefore submits that since the process for election has started, Court may not interfere with the election. The learned Addl. Advocate General in support of his submissions has relied upon the following authorities:- (1) Shaji K. Joseph Vs. V. Viswanath And Ors. (2016) 4 SCC 429 and (2) Shri Sant Sadguru Janardan Swami (Moingiri Maharaj) Sahakari Dugdha Utpadak Sanstha & Anr. The learned Addl. Advocate General in support of his submissions has relied upon the following authorities:- (1) Shaji K. Joseph Vs. V. Viswanath And Ors. (2016) 4 SCC 429 and (2) Shri Sant Sadguru Janardan Swami (Moingiri Maharaj) Sahakari Dugdha Utpadak Sanstha & Anr. (2001) 8 SCC 509 [9.] The learned Addl. Advocate General has also produced the departmental records for perusal of this Court. [10.] Mr. C. Lalramzauva, learned Senior Counsel in a short reply to the submissions made by the learned Addl. Advocate General submits that the grievance of the petitioners is not with regard to a dispute on their election or non- election but with the arbitrary shortening of the prescribed tenure of the Village Council without any reason. As regards the announcement of the election date and other schedule of dates, including the imposition of Model Code of Conduct, the learned Senior Counsel submits that on 15.01.2025 Court had made an observation that an endeavor shall be made to finally dispose of the matter on 30.01.2025, in view of the urgent nature of the case. Therefore, the State Election Commission ought to have restrained itself from issuing the Notifications on 16.01.2025. The steps taken pursuant to the Order passed by this Court on 15.01.2025 is only an attempt to interfere in the course of justice. [11.] I have heard the submissions made by the learned counsels for the rival parties and I have also perused the materials available on record, including the department records produced by the learned Addl. Advocate General. As maybe noticed, the issue to be decided is as to whether the decision taken by the State Government to shorten the life span of the existing Village Councils by over six (6) months through the two (2) impugned Notifications can be sustained in law. The two (2) impugned Notifications have been issued in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 5 of the V.C Act. Section 5 of the V.C Act may be abstracted hereunder for ready perusal:- “ 5. Duration of Village Council- Every Village Council, unless sooner dissolved under the provision of section 25 of this Act shall continue for 5 (five) years from the date appointed for its first meeting. Provided that the State Government may, by order, extend or shorten the life of a Village Council for such periods not exceeding eighteen months in the aggregate. Duration of Village Council- Every Village Council, unless sooner dissolved under the provision of section 25 of this Act shall continue for 5 (five) years from the date appointed for its first meeting. Provided that the State Government may, by order, extend or shorten the life of a Village Council for such periods not exceeding eighteen months in the aggregate. Provided further that the process of election to a Village Council shall be completed before the term of the Councils comes to an end. (As amended in 2014)” [12.] From the above abstract, it may be seen that unless sooner dissolved, the term of a Village Council shall be five (5) years from the date appointed for its first meeting. The first proviso provides that the State Government may by order extend or shorten the term of the Village Council by 18 months in the aggregate. The second proviso provides that the process of election to a Village Council shall be completed before the term of the (existing) Village Council comes to an end. It can therefore be seen that the State Government has the power to extend or shorten the life of a Village Council for a period not exceeding 18 months. As stated by the petitioners, the term of the Village Council is to come to an end in the month of September, 2025, but the same has been cut short by the impugned Notifications to 19.02.2025. From a perusal of the impugned Notifications, it may be seen that no specific reasons have been assigned as to why the term of the Village Councils have been shortened except for mentioning that it is in the interest of public service and in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 5 of the V.C Act. The State respondents through their affidavit-in-opposition filed on 24.01.2025 at paragraph No. 5 have stated that such a decision has been taken after due consideration of financial implications of holding multiple General Elections in the upcoming fiscal year as Post Devolution Revenue Deficit Grants as per the th recommendations of the 15 Finance Commission has been decreasing year by year. Paragraph No. 5 of the counter affidavit may be abstracted hereunder for ready perusal:- “5. Paragraph No. 5 of the counter affidavit may be abstracted hereunder for ready perusal:- “5. That with regard to the statements made in paragraph No. 15 of the writ petition, I say that the averments made in this paragraph by the Petitioners are baseless and erroneous Section 5 of the Lushai Hills District (Village Councils) Act, 1953 is exercised as per the intention of the provision of the said Act, and thereby in due accordance with law. Furthermore, contrary to the allegations contained herein, the actions and decisions of the Government on the matter are based not on the 'whims and fancies of the departmental authorities', but rather on due reasonable considerations of financial implications of holding multiple General Elections in the upcoming fiscal year as Post Devolution Revenue Deficit Grants as per the recommendations of the 15th Finance Commission has been decreasing year by year. The average monthly receipt of the Post-Devolution Revenue Deficit Grant (PDRDG) for Mizoram in the fiscal year 2023-24 was Rs. 122 crore. In 2024-25, the average monthly receipt decreased to Rs. 89 crore, and it is projected to further decline to approximately Rs. 49 crore per month in 2025-26. The impact of this declining receipt, coupled with the ever-increasing public expenditure on salaries, wages, office expenses, and the maintenance of essential services and infrastructure, will pose a significant financial challenge for the State government. In light of this, it has become imperative to reschedule the timing of the Village Council Elections in the State. And amidst this mounting financial constraints, the State Government has to face three (3) Civic Polls, apart from the Village Councils Election, which are due successively in the upcoming fiscal year viz. General Election to Village Council, Chakma Autonomous District Council (due in March 2025), General Election to Mara Autonomous District Council and Lai Autonomous District Council (due in December 2025), and General Election to Aizawl Municipal Corporation (due in March,2026).Thus, keeping in mind this plethora of Civic Polls in the upcoming fiscal year, the government has decided to shorten the current Village Councils term and conduct elections within the current fiscal year itself in order to ensure that the general public may not face inconvenience in the next fiscal year due to the aforementioned elections expenditure and Post Devolution Revenue Deficit Grants. This is especially necessary as the impact of the declining receipt of the Post Devolution Revenue Deficit Grants (PDRDG) at the face of ever-increasing public expenditure coupled with these successive elections expenditure would put a huge burden to the State exchequer as the expenses will have to be met in rapid succession and almost in one go.” [13.] From the above abstract, it can be seen that in view of the financial implications of holding multiple General Elections in the upcoming fiscal year and decrease in the Post Devolution Revenue Deficit Grants as per the th recommendations of the 15 Finance Commission and also, the upcoming three (3) Civil Polls apart from the Village Councils Election, which are upcoming in the fiscal year i.e., General Election to the Chakma, Lai and Mara Autonomous District Councils and also, election to the Aizawl Municipal Corporation have been the consideration amongst others for shortening the term of the Village Councils. The departmental records have also been perused and it is seen that the considerations for deciding to shorten the term of the Village Councils have taken place at various levels. The reasons and the considerations taken in the affidavit-in-opposition correlate to the notings in the file highlighting the reasons for having an early General Election for the Village Councils. [14.] Let us now examine the authorities relied upon by the parties concerned. The case of Pu Dosanga (supra) relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners is in respect of giving an opportunity to the affected persons before the dissolution of the Village Council. It may be noticed that Section 25 (1) of the V.C Act referred to in the said decision was prior to the amendment of the V.C Act. With the amendment, there is now a provision which says that dissolution should not be made without affording reasonable opportunity to the Village Council as to why it should not be dissolved. However, in the present case, we are concerned with the shortening of the term of the Village Council and not dissolution of the Village Council. With the issuance of the successive impugned Notification dated 21.11.2024 in the name of the Governor of the State, the case of Sunil Kumar Vaish (supra) and the case of Nabam Rebia and Bamang Felix (supra) are found to be not applicable to the instant case. With the issuance of the successive impugned Notification dated 21.11.2024 in the name of the Governor of the State, the case of Sunil Kumar Vaish (supra) and the case of Nabam Rebia and Bamang Felix (supra) are found to be not applicable to the instant case. [15.] The case of G. Vallikumar (supra), which is with regard to the recording the reasons for passing a certain order by quasi-judicial authority is also not found to be applicable in the facts and circumstances of the instant case because the said case was a case of departmental enquiry. In the present case, we are concerned with the shortening of the term of a Village Council in terms of Section 5 of the V.C Act. Although Section 5 does not provide for reasons to be recorded or opportunity to be given to the persons affected prior to invoking of Section 5 but the exercise cannot be mechanical. In the instant case, the materials on record go to show that some considerations have been recorded prior to taking such a decision. [16.] The case of Bandeep Singh & Ors. (supra) and Dipak Babaria & Anr. (supra) wherein, the Apex Court held that the stand of a party cannot be improved by way of an affidavit is found to be not applicable to the instant case as well for the reason that the stand taken in the affidavit also appears to be what has been recorded in the departmental records. It may be stated herein that the soundness of the decision of the authority/authorities concerned ordinarily may not call for the interference of the Court so long as there are attributable reasons given for taking such a decision. It is only in a case where such decision has been taken arbitrarily and unilaterally and against the relevant provisions or statutory provisions of law, a decision which defies logic and a decision which no person properly instructed in law could have arrived at. It would therefore be in a case of such nature that the Court may consider interfering with the order. [17.] Mr. C. Lalramzauva, learned Senior Counsel by referring to the reply affidavit of the petitioners submits that while the Post Devolution Revenue Deficit Grants (PDRDG) may be decreasing but the overall funds received/receivable is increasing year by year. It would therefore be in a case of such nature that the Court may consider interfering with the order. [17.] Mr. C. Lalramzauva, learned Senior Counsel by referring to the reply affidavit of the petitioners submits that while the Post Devolution Revenue Deficit Grants (PDRDG) may be decreasing but the overall funds received/receivable is increasing year by year. Therefore, the State respondents cannot just hand pick the decreasing grants under the head PDRDG to justify their arbitrary action. However, as already stated in the preceding paragraph, the soundness or acceptability of the decision taken ordinarily is not a matter to be examined by the Court so long as a conscious decision has been taken, backed by reasons and is authorized in law. The justification for passing the order may or may not be reflected in the order itself but the decision making process should be discernible in the records. Therefore, considering the materials placed before this Court, the submission of the learned Senior Counsel cannot be accepted. The learned Senior Counsel also submits that the impugned Notifications are not sustainable for violation of the Mizoram (Transaction of Business) Rules, 2014. It may however be seen that a specific pleading in this regard has not been made so as to get a response from the respondents. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to enter into issues which is/are not specifically pleaded. [18.] Keeping the above factors in mind and considering the materials available on record, this Court is of the considered view that it cannot be said that the instant case belongs to the latter category as stated in paragraph No. 16 of this Order in view of the fact that the reasons for taking such a decision has been given by the respondents although the same may have not been reflected in the impugned Notifications. Therefore, in the considered view of this Court, the petitioners cannot be said to have any legitimate grievance as projected by them. Having come to such a conclusion, discussion on the remaining authorities cited by the parties is found to be not necessary. For the same reason, the Court also refrains from making any observation on the submissions about the developments that has taken place after notice of motion was issued on 15.01.2025. Having come to such a conclusion, discussion on the remaining authorities cited by the parties is found to be not necessary. For the same reason, the Court also refrains from making any observation on the submissions about the developments that has taken place after notice of motion was issued on 15.01.2025. [19.] As regards the application filed by the applicants concerned for their impleadment as petitioners in the instant writ petition in view of the conclusion made herein above, dealing with the application will only be academic and be of no consequence. This Court is therefore not inclined to pass any further order in the application and as such, the same is closed. [20.] As for the writ petition, for the reasons recorded in the preceding paragraphs, the same is found to be without merit and is accordingly dismissed. No cost.