MIEHLO MANASIA Vs. STATE OF MIZORAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. B.C. Das, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant/writ petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. Pathak, learned Advocate General representing the respondents Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. AK Phookan, learned senior counsel has appeared and argued on behalf of the respondent No. 3.

(2.) The present writ appeal is directed against the Judgment and order dated 8-1-2007 passed in WP (C) No. 6165/2006, The challenge in the writ petition was to the notification dated 28-11-2006 whereby the Chief Executive Member of Mara Autonomous District Council (hereinafter referred to as "the MADC") was directed to secure a vote of confidence in a special session on 8-1-2007. By the said order it was further directed that only the elected Members of the District Council shall be permitted to vote in the vote of confidence. The writ petitioner who is a nominated Member of the District Council has challenged the said direction dated 28-11 -2006 whereby the nominated Members have been kept out of the vote of confidence by not permitting them to vote in the proceeding.

(3.) In order to appreciate the issues raised, it would be necessary to take note of a few relevant developments pertaining to election of the Chief Executive Member of the MADC, By notification dated 27-4-2005 Pu N Vaikhu was appointed as the Chief Executive Member of MADC w.e.f. 26-4-2005. The said order of appointment was issued after compliance of the requisite formalities of election of the Chief Executive Member contemplated by Rule 22 of the MADC (Constitution, Conduct of Business etc.) Rules, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules"). In the process of election N Vaikhu was elected as the leader of the United Legislature Party consisting of the twelve elected Members of the MADC on 25-4-2005 and thereafter as the Chief Executive Members of the said Council. Following the election of the Chief Executive Members as aforesaid, the Governor of Mizoram by notification dated 11-11-2005 issued in exercise of powers conferred by Paragraph 2(1) read with paragraph 20-BB of the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution of India read with Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 7 of the Rules, appointed four persons by nomination as Members of the MADC. The writ petitioner Miehlo Manasia was one of the four Members nominated by the Governor to be a Member of the MADC. Thereafter the United Legislature Party constituted by seven MDF and 4 INC Members withdrew support to the Chief Executive Member Pu N Vaikhu by making a declaration to the said effect. Soon thereafter ten Members of MNF extended support to Pu N Vaikhu and a joint legislature party was formed. On the recommendation of the Chief Executive Members, the Government by notification dated 21-11-2005 appointed seven new Executive members and directed the Chief Executive Member to secure vote of confidence in the MADC by 15-12-2005. One Mr. K. Hrahmo, an elected Member of the district council challenged the notification dated 21 -11 -2005 by filing WP (C) No. 139/2005 and sought a direction from this Court for dissolution of the district council. A further prayer was made to restrain the Government from going ahead with the vote of confidence scheduled to be held on 15-12-2005 whereby the nominated Members were also permitted to participate in the vote of confidence. The writ petitioner contended that the four nominated members were not entitled to vote. But this Court by order dated 9-12-2005 in WP (C) No. 139/2005 rejected the prayer made for keeping the nominated Members out from voting in the vote of confidence. Subsequently on 10-8-2006 the writ petition came to be withdrawn because of subsequent developments. It appears that fresh direction requesting the Chief Executive Member to seek vote of confidence was issued and during the vote of confidence, which reportedly took place on 29-3-2006, confidence in favour of the Chief Executive Member was expressed. During the said vote of confidence the nominated Members were allowed to cast their votes and the group represented by the respondent No. 3 contended that the said vote of confidence taken on 29-3-2006 was contrary to the Rules and sought intervention of the Governor in the matter. Subsequently the impugned notification dated 28-11 -2006 was issued directing the Chief Executive Member to secure vote of confidence of the House with participation of only the elected Members and debarring the nominated Members from casting their votes in the motion of vote of confidence. Being aggrieved, the writ petitioner, who is one of the nominated Members, filed WP (C) No. 6165/06 challenging the legality of the notification dated 28-11-2006 whereby the nominated Members have been kept out from voting in the vote of confidence to be secured by the Chief Executive Member.