PRAKANTA WARISA Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The notification dated 13.6.2001 (Annexure-IV) issued by the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, Hills Areas Department has been challenged in this Writ petition. By this notification on expiration of five year term of the North Cachar Hills Autonomous Council, the Governor of Assam in exercise of powers under sub-para (2) of Paragraph 16 of the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution of India read with Rule 4 of the Assam Autonomous Districts (Constitution of District Council's) Rules, 1951, assumed to himself with immediate effect all the functions and powers vested in and exercisable by the North Cachar Hills Autonomous Council, and made all sutth powers and functions exercisable by the Deputy Commissioner, North Cachar Hills District on his behalf.

(2.) The petitioners are the erstwhiile members of the North Cachar Hills Autonomous Council (hereinafter referred to as the Council) and they were elected to the Council in the election held on 3.6.96. Their grievance is that the first meeting of the Council was held on 14.6.96 and the term of the last Executive Committee was due to expire on 14.6.2001. well ahead of the time of the petitioners made requests to the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 for holding the election of the Council before expiry of me term. The Executive Committee also adopted resolution to that effect and forwarded the same to the Governor through respondent Nos. 1 and 2. But no step was initiated to hold the election. The Executive Committee again passed a resolution on 28.5.2001 requesting the Government to hold the election on due date to enable the new Executive Committee to take over charge. The resolution was forwarded to the Governor through respondent No. 2 on 29.5.20)01 which evoked no response. Anticipating chat the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were not interested in holding election and that they were rather making time for an opportunity to invoke the provisions of sub-para (2) of Paragraph 16 of the Sixth Schedule, the writ petitioners approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 3971/2001 praying for intervention by the Court. The learned Advocate General appraised the Court that the Government had not taken any decision in the matter and, on such submission, the petition was dismissed as premature. Apprehension of the writ petitioners transformed into reality when the impugned notification was issued by the Government on the last day of the term of the Council. The petitioners expressed grievance as the term of the Council has not-been extended as per provisions of sub-rule (3) of Rule 7 of the Assam Autonomous Districts (Constitution of District Councils) Rules, 1951.

(3.) The State respondents pleaded that the report submitted by the Enquiry Commission authorised to investigate the public complaints is indicative of various financial improprieties and irregularities. Apart from this, the writ petitioners themselves expressed that it would not be feasible to hold election within time because of heavy rains, landslides, floods and the disturbed law and order situation. The impugned notification has been issued after taking into consideration of relevant factors, i.e. expiry of the term of the Council, views of the Executive Committee and the report of the Enquiry Commission substantiating financial mismanagement and irregularities. It is further submitted that the writ petitioners themselves in their representation submitted to the Chief Minister requested for postponment of the election by another year after expiry of its term in the month of June, 2001 on the ground of deteriorating law and order situation, extremist activities and rainy season. It was obviously intended by them to continue in office without election in view of the provisions in sub-rule (3) of Rule 7 of the Assam Autonomous Districts (Constitution of District Councils) Rules, 1951, for short the 'Rules'. According to the State respondents, the notification has been issued in pubttic interest and, hence, no writ would lie.