SH. NIKIAUVA Vs. MARA AUTONOMOUS DISTRICT COUNCIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. C. Lalramzauva, the learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. Juliana Lalhmangaihi, the learned counsels for the writ petitioners. Also heard Mr. Lalfakawma, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. None appears for the private respondent Nos. 4 to 11 despite service. Vide Order dated 17.01.2017, notice was deemed served upon them. Therefore, the case is being disposed without the participation of the said private respondents.

(2.) Brief facts of the case for disposal of the writ petition may be narrated at the outset. The petitioners were elected as Village Council members to the Noaotlah- II Village Council. Vide Notification dated 23.05.2013 (annexure-1), the petitioners formed the No-aotlah-II Village Council with the approval of the Executive Committee of the Mara Autonomous District Council (the Council for short)

(3.) As some allegations cropped up against the Village Council, the respondent authorities constituted an Enquiry Commission to look into the allegations as directed by the Executive Committee on 26.08.2014. After the enquiry was made by the Commission, a report was submitted to the respondent authorities and the petitioners submitted a representation to the respondent No. 1 on 27.08.2014 (annexure-2) giving their explanations on the allegations made against them. However, the respondents authorities vide Notification dated 14.11.2014 (annexure-3) dissolved the Village Council with immediate effect. Being aggrieved, the petitioners approached this Court by filing W.P(C) No. 140/2014, which was disposed of vide Order dated 01.08.2016. By the said Order, this Court held that since the petitioners were not given adequate opportunity prior to the dissolution of the Village Council in terms of Section 26(1)(a) of the Mara Autonomous District Council (Village Councils) Act, 1974 (the Village Councils Act for short), the dissolution of the Village Council vide Notification dated 14.11.2014 was set aside. However, liberty was given to the respondents to issue a Show Cause Notice to the petitioners.