D UPHING MASLAI Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The notification dated 15-3-2001 issued by the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, Hill Areas Department which provides for assumption of all he functions and powers vested in and exercisable by the Karbi Anglong Autonomous Council by the Governor is in challenge. The notification reads as follows :-

(2.) The writ petitioners, namely, Mr. D. Uphing Maslai and Mr. Sarsing Timung, represent the Autonomous State Demand Committee, a political party. They are elected members of the Council. The Autonomous State Demand Committee won 21 seats out of 26 in the election held in the year 1996 and elected Mr. Babu Rongpi and Mr. Jotson Bey as the Chairman and the Chief Executive Member. The Autonomous State Demand Committee took a resolution in the month of June, 2000 demanding that the Chairman and the Chief Executive Member should step down. On refusal, majority of the members of the Council moved a resolution for removal of the Chairman on 25-7-2000. The resolution was not included in the agenda and, therefore, majority of the members of the Council submitted memoranda before the Government of Assam. The Government by W.T. Message dated 24-7-2000 fixed 25-7-2000 for consideration of the resolution for removal of the Chairman. The resolution was carried out on 25-7-2000. The State Government had to ignore the same in view of two contrary proceedings of the House. The Government thereafter fixed 29-7-2000 for consideration of the resolution in presence of the Deputy Commissioner, Karbi Anglong District. Accordingly, the resolution for removal of the Chairman was moved and carried out. Mr. Daniel Terang and Moran Hanse were elected as the Chairman and the Chief Executive Member in the election held on 31-7-2000 and 1-8-2000, respectively. But the matter did not end there. The Government, on consideration of the memorandum submitted by some of the members of the Council, again fixed 3-1-2001 for taking up a resolution for removal of the Chairman and the Chief Executive Member. Motions were moved on 6-2-2001 for their removal. But the motion could not be carried out for want of majority. Two votes were invalidated. The Government then sought further information from the Deputy Chairman of the Council. The Principal Secretary, by the message dated 24-2-2001 provided the information/clarification sought by the Government. The Government, thereafter, directed the Chief Executive Member to seek vote of confidence in the House. The Chief Executive Member won the confidence of the House in the session held on 5-3-2001. Despite that, the impugned notification dated 15-3-2001 was issued.

(3.) The notification describe the reasons for which the Governor had to intervene in exercise of powers conferred on the Governor under sub-Para (2) of Paragraph 16 of the Sixth Schedule. In Para 5 of the notification it has been mentioned that the Chief Executive Member has lost confidence of the Council (House).