WES BAMON Vs. JAINTIA HILLS AUTONOMOUS DISTRICT COUNCIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ petition involves the interpretation of matters relating to the United Khasi and Jaintia Hills; Autonomous District (Appointment & Succession of Chief and Headmen) Act, 1959.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are summed up as below : The Petitioner in the Writ Petition claimed to be himself as an elected Headman of the Brishyrnot village by the village Durbar on 1.2.1993 and the same was confirmed by the Doloi, Elaka Narpuh, the Proforma Respondent No. 5 and Respondent No. 2. The Executive Committee in turn communicated its approval of the appointment of the Petitioner by its memo dated 28.7.94. A complaint was filed by one U Bren Pala of Brishyrnot village before the Doloi questioning some of the conduct of the Petitioner on 27.10.95 and the Doloi, Proforma Respondent No. 5, on examination of the matter rejected the same. While the Petitioner was functioning as such the Administrative Officer of the District Council, the Respondent No. 3 issued a letter informing that the Executive Member In-charge was to come to Brishyrnot village on 26.2.96 at 12 PM to supervise the election/nomination of Headman of Brishyrnot village Narpuh Elaka. By the said letter the Doloi, the Proforma Respondent No. 5 was directed to convene a village Durbar in Brishyrnot village (Annexure-3 otf the Writ Petition). Subsequently, by a communication dated 8.3.96 the Respondent No. 3, the Administrative Officer of the District Council, Jowai, informed the Doloi that the Executive Committee has approved/recognised the Respondent No. 4 as the Headman of the Brishyrnot village for a period of one year in exercising of power u/s 7 (2) of the Act. The said communication also disclosed that Respondent No. 4 was elected as the Headman of the Brishyrnot village by the village Durbar held on 26.2.96. The petitioner stated and contended that he is the elected headman of the village and the statutory authority has since affirned and approved the same the quesbon of approving and recognising the Respondent No-4 as Headman without removing the Petitioner by the authority/officer-In-charge is not sustainable. The Petitioner also questioned the impugned notice dated 8.3.96 about the election of the village Head man is arbitrary and malafide and also contrary to the provisions of the Act referred to above. The Petitioner in this regard also referred and relied a communication dated 22.3.96 from the proforma respondent No. 5 tc the Respondent No. 3. By the said letter the Doloi, the Chief of the Elaka uider the custom informed customary practice of the election of Headman in Jaintia Hills. In such election only male adult members of the elaka who are permanent resident of the village are eligible to vote and after being ele cted by the village Durbar the village authority is required to intimate the same to the Doloi 'and the Doloi on ascertaining the facts and on being satisfied himself about the legality and validity of the election. He is to recomnend to the District Council for approval of the Headman elected by the villagers. The Doloi as per the said communication, the Chief of the Elaka also informed that he was present in the meeting dated 26.2.96 but no election could be held since the present incumbent of the post has not been removed from the office who is recognised as Headman. By the said communic ition the Chief of the Elaka requested the Respondent No. 3 to withdraw the order dated 8.3.96.

(3.) The Respondent Nos. 1,2,3 entered appearance and subnitted its affidavit and stated that the Petitioner was no doubt a Headman who is appointed only for a period of one year and in support of the aforesaid statement the Respondent referred a communication of the Petitioner dated 7th June, 1993. The appointment otf the Petitioner according to the District Council was also confirmed by the proforma Respondent No. 5 for a piriod of one year alongwith other office bearersr In the affidavit Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 also mentioned some of the; misconduct of the Petitioner. From the document which is placed before me by the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in its affidavit, it appears that Respondent No. 3 advised proforma Respondent No. 5 the Chief of the Elaka to meat the executive member on 1.2.96 at 11 AM positively for interrogation and discussion on the matter by its letter dated 22.1.96 and thereafter on 1.2.96 the statement of the Doloi in the meeting with Executive member Inhcharge were recorded and the same was signed by the Respondent No. 5, proforma Respondent. The same stab ment is extracted as below :