ALPHONSE A SANGMA Vs. ROYNATH D SANGMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Abstruse issues of constitutional overtones in the singular perspective of the Sixth Schedule confront this Court in this adjudicative venture. In assailment in the present appeal is the judgment and order dated 16.11.2010 rendered by a learned Single Bench of this Court in WP(C) 330 (SH)/2010. Not only thereby the notification No. DCA.18/2004/Pt./141 dated 17.9.2010 in the name of the Governor of Meghalaya under Paragraph 16(2) of the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution of India extending the term of administration of Garo Hills Autonomous District and conduct of the functions and powers vested in or exercisable by the Garo Hills Autonomous District Council (for short hereafter referred to as the Council) has been annulled, operative directions have been issued as well inter alia to convene a Special Session of the Council by the State Respondents on 25.11.2010 at 10A.M. for holding a floor test to ascertain if the Nationalist Congress Party (for short hereafter referred to as the NCP) led alliance command the majority in the House and to submit compliance report to this Court on or before 28.11.2010.

(2.) We have heard Mr. N. Dutta, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. D. Baruah, Advocate for the Appellant, Mr. Vijay Hansaria, Sr. Advocate assisted by Ms. Sneha Kalita, Smt. . S.G. Momin and Mr. S. Sangma, Advocates for the Respondent No. 1 to 18 and Mr. D. Saikia, learned Additional Advocate General, Meghalaya for the official Respondents.

(3.) The instant appeal filed on 23.11.2010 was moved for admission on the next date i.e. 24.11.2010 at 2 P.M., the Respondents 1 to 18 being represented by Mr. S. Dey, Advocate. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties for the admission and the interim relief prayed for by the Appellant, by order of the same date i.e. 24.11.2010, the operation of the impugned judgment and order was kept in abeyance till the returnable date i.e. 1.12.2010. The interim restraint notwithstanding, the floor test was conducted on 25.11.2010. The parties have exchanged their pleadings on this facet of the debate, which would be alluded to at a later stage. As the hearing of the appeal on merits progressed thereafter, further steps on the basis of the floor test so held have reportedly not been pursued.