SANGTI PHOM Vs. STATE OF NAGALAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners with the following prayers:-

(2.) Heard Mr. Taka Masa, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Arenlong, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. K. Sema, learned Senior Additional Advocate General, Nagaland assisted by Ms. Livika, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State respondent Nos. 1 to 4 as well as Mr. C.T. Jamir, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Wati Jamir, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.5.

(3.) Mr. C.T. Jamir, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.5 at the outset, raised preliminary objections on the maintainability of the writ petition. He submits that the petitioners has made specific statements at paragraph 2 in the writ petition that they have been authorized by 20 villages union to seek legal remedy in the Court of law in connection with the decision of the Government for setting up of Polytechnic at Yungho of Yongyah village at EAC, Headquarter Yongnyah under Longleng District. He submits that the said 20 villages union is not a registered union and cannnot be treated as a legal body in the eye of law. Therefore, such union has no authority to authorize any person to represent the said union. Therefore, the said 20 villages union cannot be represented by the present petitioners and therefore, the present writ petitioners have no locus standi to file the present writ petition. It is also submitted that a reading of the Annexures 3 and 4 appended to the writ petition would indicate that the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 were only authorized by their respective village council to seek legal advice and not for filing of case before the Court. Therefore, in terms of the Nagaland Village Council Act, 1978. ( the Act of 1978 in short), the village council can sue and be sued through its chairman only. It is also submitted that the petitioners are not aggrieved persons inasmuch as, none of their legal or constitutional rights has been violated by the action of the State respondents. He submits that petition under Article 226 can be filed only by an aggrieved person whose legal right has been arbitrarily violated. In the present case, the said Yungho of Yongnyah village under Longleng District has been approved by the Government for setting up of new polytechnic under Longleng District. The said project for establishment of Polytechnic is not for a particular area or section of people or village or a particular organization but it is for the benefit of the entire citizens of Longleng District. The present writ petition has been filed on the ground that the petitioners legal and constitutional right guaranteed under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution has been violated. However, no private/individual right of the petitioners has been violated by the decision of the State Government and therefore, the writ petition is misconceived and not maintainable. A further submission has been forwarded that no demand has been made by the petitioners and hence, there is no refusal from the State Government. In that view of the matter, it is submitted that no writ of mandamus can be issued in the present writ petition.