ALIMEI RONGMEI Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THERE are some indigenous Hills Tribes known as Hmar, Kuki, Mizo, Khasia, Riang, Naga, Paite, Simte, Vaiphei, Gangte, Chakma, Karbi, Hrangkhol and Chiru living in the districts of Cachar, Karimganj and Hailakandi of Barak Velley in Assam , who are backward in all spheres. These people had been agitating for quite some time demanding redressal of their grievances which culminated into signing of a Memorandum of Settlement on 18.3.1996 between the President of Cachar Hill People Federation and Deputy Secretary to the Government of Assam, W.P.T.& B.C.Department in presence of Chief Minister of Assam . The said Memorandum of Agreement primarily provides for constitution of a council known as Barak Valley(Hill Tribes) Development Council which would consist of 5(five) members elected by the electors of tribal settlement jhum permission areas and two other members to be nominated by the Government to give representation to groups/communities which are not otherwise represented in the council. The terms of the council shall be five years and the Government of Assam shall constitute an Interim Council by nomination which shall continue till the council is constituted by election.

(2.) THE Government of Assam constituted the first Interim Barak Valley (Hills Tribes) Development Council, Silchar (hereinafter in short referred to Council) with 15 non official members and two ex-officio members vide Notification dated 14.9.2006 which was re-constituted by including /or excluding some or all members from the council. THE council was ultimately re-constituted with 23 members including 2 officials vide Notification No.TAD/BC/491/07 dated 16.2.2011 issued by the Commissioner & secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Welfare of Plain Tribes & Backward Classes Department, Dispur.

(3.) WHILE issuing notice of motion on 31.3.2011, it was observed that learned State counsel was unable to obtain proper instruction within 31.3.2011 to throw light on the issue raised by the petitioners and as such an interim order was passed to the effect that till returnable date i.e. 25.4.2011 the impugned order dated 16.2.2011shall not be given effect to. The State Respondents have not come forward for vacation/modification of the aforesaid interim order. However, the private respondents No.8 to 25 filed an application on 27.4.2011 for cancellation/vacation /suitable modification of the said Interim order dated 31.3.2011. The said application has been registered as Misc.Case No.1254 of 2011. No order has been passed in the aforesaid Misc. Application but as desired by the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition has been taken up for hearing and disposal. At the time of hearing the learned counsel for the private respondents submitted that the Misc.Application filed by the private respondents for cancellation/modification of the Interim Order be treated as an affidavit-inopposition inasmuch as the necessary pleadings have been made therein. The State-Respondents have not filed any response to the writ petition.