ROYNATH D SANGMA Vs. STATE OF MEGHALAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The legality of the Notification dated 17-9-2010 issued by the Governor of Meghalaya, in exercise of his powers under sub-paragraph (2) of Paragraph 16 of the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution of India, extending his rule ("Governor's Rule") in the Garo Hills Autonomous District Council by another six months w.e.f. 1st October, 2010, unless terminated earlier or extended further. This Notification was preceded by the Notification dated 1-4-2010 whereby the Governor had been satisfied, on the basis of the reports received by him, that changes of allegiance of the Members of Garo Hills District Council ("MD Cs" for short) and the non-compliance of his orders, had made the functioning of the Council untenable, which resulted in a situation where the administration of the Garo Hills Autonomous District Council ("the District Council" for short) could not be carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution of India and had, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred on him by sub-paragraph (2) of Paragraph 16 of the Constitution of India, assumed to himself the administration of the District Council and all the functions and powers vested in or exercisable by the same, etc. The relevant portions of the impugned notifications dated 1st April, 2010 and dated 17-9-2010 run thus :

(2.) Before proceeding further, the material facts leading to the filing of this writ petition may be briefly noticed. The Petitioners numbering 19 of them were elected as Members of the said District Council together with the other MD Cs in the election held on 12-2-2009. The District Council has the total strength of 30 Members out of which 29 are elected Members with one seat to be filled up by a nominated Member, and has a term of five years with effect from the date of the first meeting of the District Council after the general election. The first meeting of the newly constituted House of the District Council was held on 18-2-2009. The genesis of this case starts with the Notification dated 30-3-2010 issued by the Governor, who, in exercise of the powers conferred upon him under Rule 36(5) of the Assam and Meghalaya Autonomous Districts (Constitution of District Councils) Rules, 1951 ("the Rules" for short), summoned a special session of the District Council to meet on 31-3-2010 at 10.30 AM for proving the majority of the Executive Committee on the floor of the House. It is the case of the Petitioners that at that particular period of time, the House was already in session as it was discussing and considering the budget proposals, and there was, therefore, absolutely no necessity for convening a special session of the House and that the Notification dated 30-3-2010 is ex facie, arbitrary, unreasonable and is a product of utter non-application of mind. Notwithstanding the unwarranted summons, claims the Petitioners, the then Chairman of the Council promptly convened the special session on 30-3-2010 and sent his report to the Governor on 30-3-2010 revealing therein the support of majority of 16 Members in a House of 30 Members in favour of the Executive Committee headed by Mr. P.K. Sangma vide his letter dated 30-3-2010.

(3.) It is the further case of the Petitioners that the real facts and circumstances working behind the issue of the aforesaid dated 30-3-2010 in the name of the Governor became public when a caveat in respect of the aforesaid Notification was lodged in this Court. Thereafter, the Governor issued the said Notification dated 1-4-2010 imposing "Governor's Rule" in the Council and took over the administration of, and assumed the power of, the District Council by himself. This Notification was followed by another Notification dated 1-4-2010 of the Governor appointing Deputy Commissioner of West Garo Hills District (Respondent 2) to exercise all the functions and powers exercisable by the authorities of the District Council as per his directions issued from time to time. By the impugned Notification, the life of the Governor's Rule came to be extended by another six months w.e.f. 1-10-2010. According to the Petitioners, at any given date since the date of the first meeting of the Council, the Members of the District Council owing allegiance to the Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) consisting of the Petitioners had enjoyed an overwhelming majority in the District Council, and even on the date of filing of the writ petition, the Petitioners have 18 Members in a House of 29 Members: the seat of the nominated Member has become vacant on the withdrawal of the nomination of Smt. Ethel Witty Ch. Marak. Aggrieved by the action of the Governor, the majority Members of the District Council jointly submitted a memorandum to him on 8-5-2010 for revoking the Notification dated 1-4-2010 and for restoring the Executive Committee headed by Shri P.K. Sangma as the Chief Executive Member of the Council. This was followed by their memorandum to the Minister of the District Council Affairs. These together with their other representations to the State-Respondents did not evoke positive response. They even claim to have paraded themselves en bloc before the Governor to demonstrate their majority in the House but to no avail. This ultimately promoted them to file this writ petition.