JUDGMENT : (MITALI THAKURIA, J.) Heard Mr. J. Sheqi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr.Imti Imsong, learned Additional Advocate General, representing the State respondent Nos.1 to 4. 2. This application is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus and/or Certiorari and/or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction of like nature. 3. The brief facts of the case is that; The petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction to the State respondents to appoint him to the post of Gaon Bura (hereinafter referred to as "GB"), which has fallen vacant following the resignation of Z. Ihoto. Ihoto, who was the Head GB of Yangzitong Village, belonged to the Yemishe Yepthomi clan, a clan of the Sumi Naga Tribe. However, he subsequently renounced his identity as a Sumi Naga and claimed to belong to the Mongzar clan, a clan of the Sangtam Naga Tribe. Following this change in identity, the clan members resolved, as per the agreement dated 10.03.2014, that Ihoto was no longer entitled to enjoy the ancestral property. The Yangzitong Village Council also concluded, vide Case Settlement Order dated 08.12.2017, that he could no longer claim rights to the ancestral property. This decision was further upheld by the Naga Customary Court, Seyochung, under the office of the ADC, Seyochung, which, in its case settlement order dated 01.02.2021, declared that Ihoto had no right to claim the ancestral properties belong to Yemishe Yepthomi clan that is undivided even in the future. Consequently, Z. Ihoto lost his hereditary rights to village chieftainship/GB and his entitlement to ancestral property, both of which belonged to the Sumi Naga Tribe. He subsequently tendered his resignation from the post of GB of Yangzitong Village. 4. Thereafter, the Yangzitong Village Council, with unanimous support from all GBs of both tribes, endorsed the name of the petitioner to be appointed to the vacant GB post, following all procedures laid down by the Government. However, an unfortunate incident occurred at midnight on 27.02.2021, wherein one Mr. Akato Yeptho (the petitioner’s cousin) was accused of firing gunshots. Following this, the Sangtam GBs wrote a letter to the Deputy Commissioner, Kiphire, accusing the petitioner and claimed to withdraw their signatures from the Village Council's meeting minutes dated 04.02.2021, which endorsed the petitioner’s appointment as GB. 5. However, an unfortunate incident occurred at midnight on 27.02.2021, wherein one Mr. Akato Yeptho (the petitioner’s cousin) was accused of firing gunshots. Following this, the Sangtam GBs wrote a letter to the Deputy Commissioner, Kiphire, accusing the petitioner and claimed to withdraw their signatures from the Village Council's meeting minutes dated 04.02.2021, which endorsed the petitioner’s appointment as GB. 5. Subsequently, the Sangtam GBs of Yangzitong Village, in a separate meeting excluding the Sumi GBs, accused the petitioner on two grounds: (i) that he had adopted the Sumi identity and was thus ineligible to become GB; and (ii) that he was allegedly involved in the firing incident. They also raised concerns about the petitioner’s moral conduct, without providing evidence or justification. It is important to note that the petitioner’s identity as a Sumi Naga was already adjudicated and affirmed by the Joint DBs Court on 30.06.2015, 08.12.2017, and 01.02.2021, during proceedings concerning the identity and inheritance rights of Z. Ihoto. Furthermore, the firing incident was tried by the District Court, Kiphire, and the accused, Akato Yeptho (petitioner’s cousin), was acquitted. 6. Mr. Sheqi, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that GBs, under the Rules for the Administration of Justice and Police in Nagaland, are considered part of the Court system, as defined under Rules 17, 18, 19, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, and 28. Therefore, it is unconscionable that a qualified customary court judge (i.e., a Village GB) could retract or withdraw from a decision of the Village Council to which he was a party. In this case, the Sangtam GBs were part of the unanimous decision dated 04.02.2021. He further submitted that although Village Courts are commonly referred to as Village Councils and may not enjoy the same legal standing as modern professional courts, the principles of justice and fairness remain the same. 7. In compliance with this Court’s Order dated 25.03.2025, the petitioner also filed an affidavit on 11.04.2025, demonstrating that in 2019, when a GB from the Sangtam Tribe was appointed, no recommendation was sought from the Sumi GBs. Despite this, the Sumi GBs did not object, as both tribes in the petitioner’s village appoint GBs based on hereditary lineage. To support his argument, learned counsel relied on the judgment of this Court in Tukiye & Anr. vs. A.D.C (J), Zunheboto & Ors. Despite this, the Sumi GBs did not object, as both tribes in the petitioner’s village appoint GBs based on hereditary lineage. To support his argument, learned counsel relied on the judgment of this Court in Tukiye & Anr. vs. A.D.C (J), Zunheboto & Ors. , reported in 2019 (3) GLT (FB), 858, wherein it was held that among the Sema Nagas, the offices of Chief and GB are one and the same and are hereditary in nature. 8. He also submitted that it is impermissible for a party to both approbate and reprobate, i.e., to accept and reject the same instrument simultaneously. In the instant case, the GBs of the Sangtam community had unanimously consented to the appointment of the petitioner in the village meeting and had affixed their signatures accordingly. They cannot now withdraw their signatures from that decision. In this context, he relied on the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Joint Action Committee of Airline Pilots’ Association of India (ALPAI) & Ors. vs. Director General of Civil Aviation & Ors. , reported in (2011) 5 SCC 435 , and emphasized paragraphs 11 and 12 of the said judgment, which read as under: “11. In R.N. Gosain v. Yashpal Dhir, AIR 1993 SC 352 , this Court observed as under:- "Law does not permit a person to both approbate and reprobate. This principle is based on the doctrine of election which postulates that no party can accept and reject the same instrument and that "a person cannot say at one time that a transaction is valid and thereby obtain some advantage, to which he could only be entitled on the footing that it is valid, and then turn round and say it is void for the purpose of securing some other advantage." 12. The doctrine of election is based on the rule of estoppel- the principle that one cannot approbate and reprobate inheres in it. The doctrine of estoppel by election is one of the species of estoppels in pais (or equitable estoppel), which is a rule in equity. By that law, a person may be precluded by his actions or conduct or silence when it is his duty to speak, from asserting a right which he otherwise would have had. Taking inconsistent pleas by a party makes its conduct far from satisfactory. By that law, a person may be precluded by his actions or conduct or silence when it is his duty to speak, from asserting a right which he otherwise would have had. Taking inconsistent pleas by a party makes its conduct far from satisfactory. Further, the parties should not blow hot and cold by taking inconsistent stands and prolong proceedings unnecessarily. [Vide: Babu Ram @ Durga Prasad v. Indra Pal Singh (D) by L.Rs., (1998) 6 SCC 358 ; P.R. Deshpandey v. Maruti Balaram Haibatti, (1998) 6 SCC 507 ; and Mumbai International Airport Private Limited v. Golden Chariot Airport & Anr.]” 9. Per contra, Mr. Imsong, learned Additional Advocate General, submitted that the present writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioner has not raised any question of law warranting the invocation of the extraordinary civil jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is a well-settled principle of law that the existence of a legal right is the foundation for the exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226. He further submitted that the petitioner’s case pertains to Yangzitong Village in Kiphire District, which comprises two ethnic tribes, i.e. the Sangtam and Sumi. According to the petitioner’s own assertions, whenever a vacancy arises for the post of Gaon Bura (GB), representatives from both communities jointly recommend a replacement. However, in the present case, the GBs from the Sangtam community who initially endorsed the appointment of the petitioner subsequently submitted a representation to the Deputy Commissioner, Kiphire, withdrawing their signatures from the endorsement. Upon receipt of this representation, the State respondent made all possible efforts to resolve the issue by convening meetings with the Village Council members and GBs of Yangzitong Village and also granted ample time to the parties for an amicable resolution. Despite these efforts, the dispute, which is essentially between the petitioner and members of the Sangtam community, could not be resolved within the village community framework. 10. He further submitted that, in compliance with this Court’s order dated 07.06.2024, the answering respondents filed an additional affidavit-in- opposition. In paragraph 3 of the said affidavit, it is categorically stated that the consensus of all the GBs of the village is necessary, as is evident from the plain reading of the standardized form used by the State for the replacement of GBs. In paragraph 3 of the said affidavit, it is categorically stated that the consensus of all the GBs of the village is necessary, as is evident from the plain reading of the standardized form used by the State for the replacement of GBs. A copy of the standardized form was annexed to the affidavit-in-opposition dated 09.08.2024. 11. It is submitted that the issue at hand is an internal dispute between two communities, which must be resolved by the communities themselves. The State respondents have no objection to the appointment of the petitioner as GB if he complies with the requirements of the standardized form and secures a unanimous decision from the Village Council, which is a prerequisite for such appointments. 12. Mr. Imsong further submitted that although the respondents have not raised the issue of non-joinder of parties in their affidavit-in-opposition since joinder and non-joinder are procedural matters, it is nonetheless evident that the petitioner has failed to implead the State of Nagaland, which cannot be represented solely through the Commissioner. He also submitted that the respondents have no objection to the appointment of the petitioner as Gaon Bura, provided that all relevant documents, including a unanimous resolution of the Village Council, are submitted in the format prescribed by the State. 13. In response, Mr. Sheqi, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner has already filled in and submitted the standardized form as required by the State for the appointment of a GB. The completed form has been annexed to the petition. However, despite its submission, the State respondents have failed to take any steps toward appointing the petitioner as the GB of Yangzitong Village. 14. After hearing the submissions made by the learned counsels for both sides, the following issues are seen to have been raised by the petitioner: i. That a unanimous decision was taken by the Village Council, wherein the GBs from both the Sumi and Sangtam tribes signed and recommended the name of the present petitioner for appointment as GB, following the renouncement of Sumi Naga identity by the former GB. ii. Subsequently, the GBs from the Sangtam community withdrew their signatures and submitted a representation before the State authority, alleging the petitioner’s involvement in a firing incident carried out by his cousin brother. iii. They raised objections stating that the petitioner had adopted the Sumi identity and was thus ineligible to become GB. ii. Subsequently, the GBs from the Sangtam community withdrew their signatures and submitted a representation before the State authority, alleging the petitioner’s involvement in a firing incident carried out by his cousin brother. iii. They raised objections stating that the petitioner had adopted the Sumi identity and was thus ineligible to become GB. They also questioned his moral conduct, although without any supporting evidence. 15. However, these issues have already been settled and no longer exist. It is the petitioner’s case that the person accused in the firing incident is his cousin brother who has already been acquitted, and the petitioner himself had no involvement in the matter. Furthermore, the petitioner’s identity as a member of the Sumi Naga tribe has been conclusively decided by the Joint DBs Court through orders dated 30.06.2015, 08.12.2017, and 01.02.2021. 16. On the other hand, the case of the State respondents is that they have no objection to the appointment of the petitioner as GB, provided he complies with the requirements of the standardized form for the replacement of GBs, which must be supported by a unanimous resolution of the Village Council. 17. It is thus clear that: i.The allegation regarding the firing incident has been legallyresolved. ii. The petitioner’s tribal identity has been affirmed by competent customary courts. 18. However, despite the settlement of these issues, no fresh meeting of the Village Council was convened after the withdrawal of signatures by certain Sangtam GBs. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in some instances, decisions have been taken by the Sangtam GBs without the participation or knowledge of Sumi GBs or village members. 19. In the present circumstances, the earlier unanimous decision of the Village Council, as recorded in the meeting minutes dated 04.02.2021, has lost its legal effect due to the subsequent withdrawal of support by some of the Sangtam GBs. The principle of the doctrine of election, which holds that a person cannot simultaneously accept and reject the same transaction (i.e., approbate and reprobate), is not applicable in the present case. Although a unanimous decision was originally made by GBs from both tribes, the subsequent withdrawal of support, prompted by new circumstances and allegations, altered the situation materially. Hence, the doctrine cannot be invoked to claim that the Sangtam GBs are bound by their earlier consent. 20. Although a unanimous decision was originally made by GBs from both tribes, the subsequent withdrawal of support, prompted by new circumstances and allegations, altered the situation materially. Hence, the doctrine cannot be invoked to claim that the Sangtam GBs are bound by their earlier consent. 20. In compliance with this Court’s order dated 07.06.2024, the State respondents filed an affidavit-in-opposition, clarifying that consensus of all GBs of the village is a necessary requirement under the standardized form used State-wide for the replacement of GBs. The form requires the names and signatures of all GBs of the concerned village, reflecting a consensus decision for appointment. 21. In further compliance with the Court’s order dated 25.03.2025, the petitioner also filed an affidavit in response to the query regarding whether the consent of one tribe is mandatory when the GB is to be appointed from the other tribe. In that affidavit, it was stated that in Yangzitong Village, succession to the post of GB is hereditary for both the Sumi and Sangtam tribes. It was further stated that there is no requirement to obtain the consent of one tribe when a clan from the other tribe decides to nominate a person from among its own members for the GB post. It was contended that no other person, clan, or tribe can interfere with or obstruct such hereditary nomination. It was also pointed out that in 2019, when a GB from the Yangsekyu clan (Sangtam tribe) was appointed following the death of his brother, the consent of the Sumi GBs was neither sought nor obtained; the appointment was made solely with the approval of the Sangtam GBs. 22. Upon perusal of the standardized form, as annexed by both parties, it is seen that clauses 12, 13, and 14 (Annexure-8) state as follows: “12. Was there a general Consensus Of the Village/Khel/Colony/ (Tick whichever applies) : Yes by Village/Khel/Colony or No 13. Date of General Consensus : 14. Meeting minutes or Memorandum to the effect of the General Consensus : Yes or No” 23. From the above clauses, it is evident that general consensus is a mandatory requirement for the appointment of a GB, along with the minutes of the meeting of the Village Council. These documents must be attached to the standardized form prescribed by the State. Meeting minutes or Memorandum to the effect of the General Consensus : Yes or No” 23. From the above clauses, it is evident that general consensus is a mandatory requirement for the appointment of a GB, along with the minutes of the meeting of the Village Council. These documents must be attached to the standardized form prescribed by the State. Thus, the existence of a general consensus is a precondition for a valid recommendation and appointment of a GB. However, in the present case, as discussed above, no such general consensus presently exists , as some of the signatories from the Sangtam community have already withdrawn their signatures from the previously adopted minutes of the Village Council. 24. It is also seen that two divergent stands have been taken by the petitioner and the State authorities regarding whether the consent of both tribes is necessary to constitute general consensus. Nonetheless, as discussed earlier, at the time of recommending the petitioner’s name, the GBs from both the Sumi Naga and Sangtam Naga Tribes had jointly participated in a general meeting, during which, as per the minutes of the Village Council, the petitioner was unanimously recommended for appointment as GB. 25. In view of the current situation, where the consensus has effectively been nullified due to the withdrawal of signatures, the State authority is not in a position to proceed with the appointment of the petitioner. Accordingly, this Court is of the opinion that the Village Council should convene a fresh meeting, and after arriving at a general consensus, the petitioner may submit a new standardized form, duly supported by the required documentation, before the State authority. Upon receipt of such a form, duly supported by the general consensus of the Village Council, the State authority may take appropriate steps for the petitioner’s appointment as GB in accordance with law. However, at this stage, in the absence of such a consensus, this Court is of the considered view that the State authority cannot be directed to appoint the petitioner as GB. 26. With above observation and direction, this writ petition stands disposed of.