BHUDDHA LILA Vs. STATE OF MIZORAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. M. Zothankhuma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. N. Sailo, learned Additional Advocate General, Mizoram for the State respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Mr. Ricky Gurung, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 4 to 6.

(2.) AT this stage it is made clear that though the writ petitioner challenged the vires of the Chakma Autonomous District Council (Constitution, Conduct or Business, etc.) Rules, 2002, now, he at this stage refuses to insist on that matter. However, the petitioner by this writ petition express his desire to challenge the Notification dated 27. 02. 2003 issued by the Chairman, Chakma Autonomous District Council vide Memo No. H. 18011/28/2003-CADC (L)/2, disqualifying the petitioner from being a Member of the Chakma Autonomous District Council.

(3.) THE brief case for the writ petitioner is that the Governor of Mizoram in exercise of his power conferred by sub rule 1 of rule 7 of Mizoram Autonomous District Council (Constitution, Conduct of Business) Rules, 1974 was pleased to notify vide notification dated 19. 11. 2001 that the Chakma Autonomous District Council (for short 'cadc') shall consist of 17 Members of whom 13 shall be elected on the basis of adult franchise and the remaining 4 shall be nominated by the Governor. This notification dated 19. 11. 2001 was issued in super session of notification dated 07. 04. 1998. On 28. 01. 2003 a notice of election to the 7th Chakma Autonomous District Council was issued by the Additional Returning Officer fixing 14. 02. 2003 as the date of election for 13 seats to be filled up by direct election.