JATAN KUMAR THAOSEN Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in PIL No. 1/2007 is a resident of N. C. Hills District. He was a member of the Assam Public Service Commission and also the Principal Secretary of the N. C. Hills Autonomous Council. He filed this petition in the capacity of Advisor of Jadikhe Naisho Hoshom, the Apex Body of Dimasa Society, a predominant tribe of the District. In this Public Interest Litigation he has challenged the notification dated 15. 12. 2006 issued by the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam extending the term of the District Council for a period of six months. PIL No. 85 of 2006 is also directed against the said notification with a prayer for interim stay. The petitioner No. 1 in this petition is All Dimasa Students Union actively associated with all developmental works in the District of N. C. Hills. The petitioner No. 2 is the President of All Dimasa Students Union. During the pendency of the proceedings, the petitioners in PIL No. 85/2006 made an oral submission for withdrawal of the PIL. This oral submission was rejected by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 5. 1. 2007. Thereafter, an application was filed by the President of the student body praying for permission to withdraw from the PIL. The prayer for withdrawal was made as they feel satisfied in view of the notification dated 2. 1. 2007 issued by the Governor of Assam assuming powers vested in or exercisable by the District Council. By the order dated 9. 2. 2007 passed in Misc. Case No. 68/2007, permission was granted to withdraw the names of the applicant Nos. 1 and 2 from PIL No. 85/2006. On such withdrawal, the petition did not abate since by the order dated 5. 1. 2007, intervenor namely-Mohit Hojai was transposed as the petitioner in this PIL.

(2.) WHILE admitting the Public Interest Litigation No. 85/2006, by the order dated 20. 12. 2006, this Court held that the petitioners have been able to make out a prima facie case for suspending the operation of the notification dated 15th December, 2006 and, accordingly, it was ordered that the operation of the impugned notification shall remain suspended until further orders with liberty to the respondents to seek modification of this order for reasons to be shown. Thereafter, the Respondent No. 4, the Chief Executive Member of the N. C. Hills Autonomous Council, filed Misc. Case No. 313/2007 for vacating the interim order dated 20. 12. 2006. During the course of the proceedings, it has been agreed by the learned counsel for the parties that the application for vacating the interim order shall be heard along with the public interest litigations. It may be mentioned here that the State has not filed any affidavit in this case. It was submitted at the Bar that the miscellaneous application filed for vacating the interim order shall be treated as affidavit on behalf of the respondents. Accordingly, we have heard at length Shri A. K. Bhattacharjee, Shri P. K. Goswami, learned senior counsel for the petitioners and Mr. A. M. Mazumdar and Shri P. Pathak, learned senior counsel for the respondents. We have also heard Ms. B. Goyal, learned State Counsel.

(3.) BEFORE the submission of the learned counsels are taken for consideration, it would be relevant to place on record that the petitioner in PIL No. 85/2006 had sought permission of the Court to withdraw the PIL. The Court by the order dated 5. 1. 2007 refused to grant any permission to the petitioner to withdraw the PIL. The Court also ordered that the intervenor shall stand transposed as the petitioner in this PIL. The original petitioner, namely All Dimasa Students' Union (ADSU), Haflong and another however did not pursue the petition. The intervenor has been represented by Shri P. K. Goswami, learned senior counsel. It may further be mentioned here that no affidavit has been filed by the respondents in the cases at hand. Mr. A. M. Mazumdar, learned senior counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 5 submitted that the Miscellaneous Application No. 232/2007 filed by them for vacating the interim order dated 20. 12. 2006 shall be treated as an affidavit in this petition on behalf of the respondents. Similarly, Mr. P. Pathak, learned senior counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 4 submitted that the Miscellaneous Application No. 131/2007 filed by them for vacating the interim order shall also be treated as an affidavit in this petition.