CHAWAS LYNGDOH Vs. JAINTIA HILLS AUTONOMOUS DISTRICT COUNCIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner who is the Dolloi of Elaka Raliang has challenged two noti-fications dated 12.07.2011 and 19.07.2011 issued by the authorities of Jaintia Hills Autonomous District Council (JHADC for short), inter alia, seeking to conduct Election of Pator of Sumer Patorship under Ralian Elaka. The English translated copies of the two notifications as appearing in Annexures IV & V of the writ petition are reproduced herein below :-

(2.) THIS petition was initiatly moved on 27.07.2011. On that day, on behalf of Mr. H.S. Thangkhiew, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 & 2 sought for time till 01.08.2011. Accordingly, time was granted till 01.08.2011 and on the same date, in the interim order passed in MC No.(SH) 260/2011, it was made clear that till the next date fixed, no action shall be taken on the basis of the notification dated 19.07.2011. When the matter was listed on 01.08.2011, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for time till 03.08.2011 for obtaining necessary instruction. On 03.08.2011, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner prayed for listing the case on the next date. Accordingly, the case was listed on 04.08.2011 and on that day also, the learned counsel for JHADC did not place any instruction before this Court and also did not file any affidavit or any other document and prayed for fixing it on 09.08.2011 so as to enable him to file counter/objection. However, no affidavit etc. was filed by JHADC till 09.08.2011 and the matter was again fixed on 12.08.2011 for admission hearing with an understanding that keeping in view the nature of controversy, the matter would be taken up for disposal on 12.08.2011. However, on 12.08.2011 also, Mr. Thongkhiew, learned Senior counsel prayed for further 4 weeks time to file affidavit on behalf of the JHADC. The other respondents namely respondent Nos. 3 & 4, represented respectively by Mr. Khyriem, learned counsel and Mr. G.S. Massar, learned Senior counsel also did not file any affidavit. As already expressed earlier, considering the nature of controversy at hand as well as the constraint of time limit within which the election process of the post of Pator in question is to be completed, this Court felt it necessary to take up the matter for final disposal at this stage itself.

(3.) THE term "existing customs prevailing in the Elaka concerned" pertaining to this particular Elaka of Sumer Patorship came in for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in Civil Rule No: 199/1980 (Annexure 1 to the writ petition). THE Division Bench had occasion to record the following facts and circumstances of the case and had also laid down the following ratio in respect of the custom of the Elaka concerned: