H LALRAMDINHLUNA Vs. STATE OF MIZORAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned senior counsel for the appellants, Mr. A.D Choudhury, learned Additional Advocate General for the State of Mizoram for the respondents No. 1, 2 and 4 and Mr. B. Lalramenga learned counsel for the respondent No.3.

(2.) This appeal involves the interpretation of the provisions of the Lai Autonomous District Council (Constitution, Conduct of Business etc.) Rules, 2010. It is an admitted position that the Lai Autonomous District Council (Constitution, Conduct of Business etc.) Rules, 2010 (in short LADC Rules 2010), Mara Autonomous District Council (Constitution, Conduct of Business etc.) Rules, 2002 (in short MADC Rules 2002) and the Chakma Autonomous District Council (Constitution, Conduct of Business etc.) Rules, 2002 (in short CADC Rules 2002) are parimateria with each other and all the three Rules are framed under paragraph 2(7) of the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution of India. Earlier a question had arisen as to whether the nominated members of the Autonomous District Councils in the State of Mizoram are empowered to vote in a proceeding of vote of confidence in respect of the Chief Executive Member of the Executive Council. In the earlier round of litigation in respect to the MADC Rules 2002, a situation had arisen where the Chief Executive Member (CEM) Mr. Vyakhu, an independent member, was required to seek a vote of confidence. By a notification of 28.11.2006, a direction was issued requiring the CEM of MADC to secure a vote of confidence of the house in a special session to be held on 08.01.2007 by providing that the vote of confidence shall be secured through a motion in which only the elected members of the Council shall vote. Mr. Vyakhu, the independent member, who was the CEM required the help of the nominated members to sail through the vote of confidence and in the resultant situation, the notification dated 28.11.2006 was assailed resulting in WP(C) No. 6165/2006 (Miehlo Manasia -vs- State of Mizoram and others).

(3.) The said writ petition was given a final consideration by the judgment dated 08.01.2007 of the learned Single Judge. In paragraph-8 of the judgment of the learned Single Judge, Rule-2, Rule-6, Rule-7, Rule-22, Rule-24, Rule-25, Rule-38 and Rule-84 of the MADC Rules 2002 were extracted. While interpreting the provisions of Rule-22 of the MADC Rules 2002, in paragraphs 30 and 31 of the judgment, the following was held:-