SOUTISH YOUROIN Vs. STATE OF MEGHALAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, the petitioner is questioning the validity of the order dated 17.32011 issued by the Executive Committee of the Khasi Hills Autonomous District Council placing him under suspension pending inquiry against him and then appointing the private respondent as the Acting Wahadadar of the Sheila Confederacy in his place. The facts giving rise to the writ petition, as pleaded by the petitioner, are that the District Council enacted the United Khasi-Jaintia Hills Autonomous District Council (Election of Wahadadar) Act, 1955 ("Wahadadar Act" for short) prescribing the procedure for, and the terms and conditions, of the appointment of Wahadadar of the Sheila Confederacy ("the Confederacy" for short) and that this Confederacy consists of nine villages, namely, (1) Sheila, (2) Mustoh, (3) Nongtrai, (4) Dewsaw, (5) Tyngnger, (6) Lyngkhom, (7) Umtlang, (8) Rumnong and (9) Nongwar, each of which possesses its own village Durbar (Sandi), which are under the control of the Wahadadar of the Confederacy. The administration of the Elakas under the District Council differ from one Elaka to another and unlike the other Elakas, the administration of the Confederacy vests in the Wahadadar and the Durbar Hima, which consists of two representatives from each of the nine villages. The Wahadadar and his Durbar thus form the administrative body of the Confederacy, which has been the customary practice since time immemorial, and there is no Executive Durbar under this Confederacy. The Executive Committee of the District Council issued the notification dated 1.10.2009 inviting eligible candidates for the filing nomination for election to the office of the Wahadadar of the Confederacy in accordance with Section 14(b) of the Election Act. The petitioner and others filed their nomination papers to the Returning Officer. In the election, the petitioner was duly elected as the Wahadadar of the Confederacy, which was subsequently approved by the Executive member in charge of the Elaka Administration, KHADC, and he was then granted the Sanad purporedly under the provisions of the United Khasi-Jaintia Hills Autonomous District (Appointment and Succession of the Chiefs and Headmen) Act, 1959, which is not applicable to the Sheila Confederacy.

(2.) It is also the case of the petitioner that after his election, he assumed the office and started discharging his functions. In the year 2010, the Mustoh Village Durbar (U Sandi Mustoh) vide their letter dated 25-8-2010 approached the petitioner for issuing No Objection Certificate (NOC) on behalf of the Confederacy for the purpose of setting up of a Cement Factory at U Sandi Mustoh, which is under the Confederacy. The petitioner thereafter convened an Executive Durbar Meeting on 17-9-2010 in which it was agreed to issue the NOC as was done in the case of Lum Mawshuh Minerals Pvt. Ltd., a subsidiary of Lafarge Surma Cement Ltd. of the Bangladesh. A draft agreement to that effect was also being made. In the meantime, the petitioner, for the purpose of the smooth functioning of the Confederacy, recommended new names as Executive Members and sought for the approval of the respondent No. 3. However, to his consternation, four Executive Members of the Durbar lodged the complaint dated 13-10-2010 before the respondent No. 2 by making several false and mischievous allegations against him and requested respondent 2 to place him under suspension. One Kondro Ksanlah, a representative of the Sheila Village Durbar and who was removed from his office for causing enmity between fellow villagers, was one of the complainants. The complaint was discussed by the Confederacy Durbar in its meeting held on 3-12-2010. This was followed by another complaint dated 1-12-2010 filed by some vested interest with respondent 2 concerning the issue of the said NOC, the resolution and the Agreement executed with Mustoh Cement Limited subject to the approval of respondent 2. Another complaint was also filed in respect of the appointment of new members of the Executive Durbar. As directed, the petitioner submitted his show cause to respondent 2 denying all the allegations levelled against him. However, the respondent authorities, on the complaint dated 13-10-2010, framed the charges on their own and issued the impugned order of suspension before and without granting him an opportunity of hearing. Subsequently, another notification dated 17-3-2011 was issued by the respondent No. 2 clarifying that the suspension had been issued in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 6 of the United Khasi-Jaintia District (Appointment and succession of Chief and Headman) Act, 1959 and that the private respondent had been appointed as the Acting Wahadadar of the Confederacy until further order. This was followed by another order dated 1732011 issued by respondent 3 directing the petitioner to hand over all the documents, materials, money and other belongings of the Confederacy to the private respondent and nullifying the Sanad dated 17.12.2009 issued to him. It is the contention of the petitioner that there is no provision under the Wahadadar Act for placing a Wahadadar of the Confederacy under suspension and that the suspension is, therefore, contrary to the provision of the Wahadadar Act and is, therefore, liable to be quashed.

(3.) The writ petition is opposed by all the respondents. However, it is only the District Council, which alone files an affidavit-in-opposition. The case of the District Council is that the District Council, which is a body corporate and can sue and be sued, has not been made a party respondent and the writ petition suffers from non-joinder of a necessary party and is thus liable to be dismissed on the very threshold on this ground alone. It is pointed out by the District Council that while the procedure for election of Wahadadar in the Confederacy is regulated by the Wahadadar Act, the powers of the District Council with respect to disciplinary action against, and other matters of administrative control over, the Wahadadar of the Confederacy are governed by the provisions of another Act, namely. United Khasi-Jaintial Hills Autonomous District Council (Appointment and Succession of Chiefs and Headmen) Act, 1959 ("the Act of 1959") and that the Act of 1959 has not superseded the Election Act, which operates in a different field and basically deals with the procedure for the election of the Wahadadar. There is nothing wrong in issuing the Sanad of the petitioner for the post of Wahadadar under Section 5 of the Act of 1959 inasmuch as the operation of the Wahadadar Act is limited to and is concerned with prescribing the election procedures for the post of Wahadadar. The fact that the Confederacy is administratively controlled by the District Council and is subject to the provisions of Sections 6, 11 and other relevant provisions of the Act of 1959 is self-evident from Section 2(a) read with Entry 5 of Appendix II, which defines the term "Chief to include the Wahadadar of the Confederacy. It is contended by the answering respondents that the impugned order of suspension has been passed by the respondent No. 2 in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 6 of the Act of 1959 and the same has been issued after granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner though no such obligation is cast by the Act of 1959. Similarly, the consequential order of appointing the respondent No. 4 as the Acting Wahadadar has also been issued by the appropriate authority under Section 11 of the Act of 1959: respondent No. 4 has been discharging the functions of the Wahadadar with effect from 21-3-2011. It is, therefore, submitted by the answering respondents that there is no merit in this writ petition, which is liable to be dismissed with cost.