CARLOS D SANGMA Vs. STATE OF MEGHALAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner by instant petition as prayed for issue of writ of mandamus so as to command the respondents to define the term 'Mulor' used in the proviso of Rule 5 of the Rules of 2015 and to publish such definition within time as the Court may deem appropriate.

(2.) Learned counsel for respondent No. 3 pointed out that earlier by medium of WP(C) No. 297 of 2015, similar position was projected, same was disposed of vide order dated 03.05.2017 wherein, it has been observed that petition may not be worth to be entertained. Confronted with that position, the petitioner had withdrawn the petition.

(3.) Now, according to the learned counsel for respondent No. 3 this petition due to later developments is rendered infructuous because the publication of the Khasi Autonomous District Council (Appointment and Succession of Chiefs and Headman) Rules of 2015 published in Part IV of the Gazette of Meghalaya, Extraordinary Published by Authority dated 21.08.2015 has been declared as unauthorised vide Notification dated 20.12.2015 published in the Gazette of Meghalaya, Extraordinary Published by Authority. Once publication of the rules has been declared unauthorised, rules as such are not into force.