PU MYLLAI HLYCHHO Vs. STATE OF MIZORAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The provisions of the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution have evolved a separate scheme for the administration of the tribal areas in Assam, Meghalaya, mizoram and Tripura through the institution of District Councils or Regional Councils. These councils are vested with legislative power on specified subjects, allotted sources of taxation and given powers to set up and administer their system of justice and maintain administrative and welfare services in respect of land, revenue, forests, education, public health etc.

(2.) The Mara Autonomous District Council, hereinafter to be referred as "madc" has thus been constituted as per the provisions of paragraph 2 (1) read with Paragraph 20 of the sixth Schedule to the Constitution of India. The madc consists of 19 elected members and the election is through adult franchise and 4 members are nominated by the Governor of mizoram by virtue of the powers conferred on him under Paragraph 2 (1) read with Paragraph 20bb of the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution. The term of the elected members is for a period of five years from the date appointed for the first meeting of the Council after the general Election to the Council and the four nominated members would hold office at the pleasure of the Governor. The first sitting of the Council after the General Election was held on 9.2.2000 and on 8.8.2000 four members, namely, Mrs. Lalbiakluangi Sailo; Mr. Myllai Hiychho, Mr. C. Lawbei and Mr. S. Lalremthanga were nominated by the Governor of Mizoram as members of MADC in exercise of the powers conferred under sub-para (1) of Paragraph 2 read with Paragraph 20bb of the Sixth Schedule, and read with sub-rule (1) of Rule 7 of the Mizoram Autonomous District Councils (Constitution and Conduct of business of the District Councils) Rules, 1974.

(3.) The Governor of Mizoram by a Notification issued on 5.12.2001 terminated the appointment/nomination of the four members who were nominated on 8.8.2000. Thereafter, another Notification was issued on 6.12.2001 whereby four members were nominated to MADC. It may also be pointed out that one member, namely, K. Chiama had submitted a No Confidence Motion to the secretary. MADC, against the Executive Committee on 4.12.2001. The Chairman granted leave for the No Confidence Motion and it was to be discussed and be voted on 6.12.2001. The date for discussion and voting of the No Confidence motion was postponed from 6.12.2001 to 7.12.2001. The termination of the membership of four members and the nomination of new members were challenged in a Writ Petition filed before the Aizawl Bench of the gauhati High Court. The High Court, by an interim order, suspended the Notification dated 6.12.2001 whereby new members were nominated to MADC. Aggrieved by the order of suspension of the nomination to MADC, the state of Mizoram filed an appeal before the division Bench, being Writ Appeal No. 518 of 2001. Initially, the Division Bench granted an ex-parte stay of the order of suspension of notification granted by the learned Single judge, but thereafter directed that the Writ petition be heard and disposed of by the learned single Judge.