ARWORDSING KHARMAWPHLANG Vs. CHIEF EXECUTIVE MEMBER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking a mandamus to direct the respondent Syiem of Mylliem to reinstate the writ petitioner as Rangbah Shnong of Mawpynthih village, cancel the impugned order of removal dated 17th January, 2019, and also for a further direction to withdraw/cancel the Sanad issued to the respondent No. 5 dated 13th December, 2018.

(2.) The brief facts of the case is that the writ petitioner was serving as Rangbah Shnong of village Mawpynthih under Mylliem Syiemship on his election to the said post and the Sanad was issued to him on 27th March, 2018. The pleaded case is that in total violation of the provisions as contained in The Khasi Hills Autonomous District (Appointment and Succession of Syiem, Deputy Syiem, Electors and Rangbah Shnong of Mylliem Syiemship Act, 2007, (hereinafter referred to as 'The Act ') the petitioner before his removal was not afforded any opportunity of hearing. Being aggrieved thereby, this writ petition has been preferred before this Court.

(3.) Mr. K.C. Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after his election, the writ petitioner was functioning in a most satisfactory manner and that his removal by the impugned order dated 17th January, 2019 is illegal and arbitrary, for the reason that Section 16 of 'The Act ' mandates that opportunity of hearing should be afforded to the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that the case of the petitioner does not come within the exceptions of the proviso to Section 18 which speaks about conviction, moral turpitude and suspension pending enquiry, which would have enabled the respondent to do away with the requirement of hearing. He further submits that the action of the respondents No. 3 and 4 is all the more illegal, inasmuch as, during the subsistence of the term of his Sanad itself, the impugned appointment was given to the respondent No. 5. The learned counsel further contends that the purported election of the private respondent, being no election in the eye of law nor held as per custom and set procedure cannot be given any credence to justify the appointment of the respondent No. 5 in his place. With regard to the point of maintainability as put up by the respondents due to the fact that he had already filed a representation before the District Council respondents, the learned counsel submits that there is no impediment in approaching this Court to invoke the power under Article 226 of the Constitution, as the action of the respondents is highly arbitrary and perverse and that in such matters there can be nothing that can prevent this Court from passing appropriate orders in exercise of powers of Article 226 of the Constitution of India . He closes his submissions by submitting that the entire sequence of events which is highly arbitrary and illegal, deserves to be interfered with by this Court, and the impugned orders be set aside and quashed.