The learned Single Judge by his order dated 18.4.2002 partly allowed the Writ Petition.
The first sitting of the Council after the General Election was held on 9.2.2000 and on 8.8.2000 four members, namely, Mrs. Lalbiakluangi Sailo Mr. Myllai Hiychho, Mr. C. Lawbei and Mr. S. Lalremthanga were numberinated by the Governor of Mizoram as members of MADC in exercise of the powers companyferred under sub para 1 of Paragraph 2 read with Paragraph 20BB of the Sixth Schedule, and read with sub rule 1 of Rule 7 of the Mizoram Autonomous District Councils Constitution and Conduct of Business of the District Councils Rules, 1974.
The term of the elected members is for a period of five years from the date appointed for the first meeting of the Council after the General Election to the Council and the four numberinated members would hold office at the pleasure of the Governor.
We heard learned companynsel for the appellants and also the learned companynsel for the State of Mizoram.
The Mara Autonomous District Council, hereinafter to be referred as MADC has thus been companystituted as per the provisions of Paragraph 2 1 read with Paragraph 20 of the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution of India.
Thereafter, another Notification was issued on 6.12.2001 whereby four members were numberinated to MADC.
The MADC companysists of 19 elected members and the election is through adult franchise and 4 members are numberinated by the Governor of Mizoram by virtue of the powers companyferred on him under Paragraph 2 1 read with Paragraph 20BB of the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution.
The dispute centres around the nature of the discretion to be exercised by the Governor in numberinating and removing persons to the District Councils of Mizoram.
The Division Bench of the High Court of Gauhati upheld the validity of both the Notifications and aggrieved by the same, the present appeals have been filed.
The Governor of Mizoram by a Notification issued on 5.12.2001 terminated the appointment numberination of the four members who were numberinated on 8.8.2000.
The application for interim relief is also referred alongwith the main appeal.
Thus the matter has companye up before the Constitution Bench.
The numberination of three out of the four members was set aside by the learned Single Judge.
In the Writ Appeal preferred by the State, the quashing of the Notification dated 6.12.2001 was challenged and the petitioners in the Writ Petition by a separate Writ Appeal challenged the order of the learned Single Judge whereby the Notification dated 5.12.2001 was upheld.
When the matter came up for companysideration before a Bench of two Judges on 27.1.2003, the following order was passed Leave granted.
However, the Notification dated 5.12.2001 whereby the membership of the four members was terminated was upheld by the learned Single Judge.
Thereafter, the matter came up before a Bench of three Judges and on 28.7.2004, the Bench observed that in view of the order dated 27.1.2003, the matter needs to be heard by a Constitution Bench.
The issue which has been raised in this appeal relates to the interpretation of paragraph 2 1 and sub paragraph 6A of Paragraph 2 read with paragraph 20 BB of the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution.
The termination of the membership of four members and the numberination of new members were challenged in a Writ Petition filed before the Aizawl Bench of the Gauhati High Court.
The High Court, by an interim order, suspended the Notification dated 6.12.2001 whereby new members were numberinated to MADC.
These companyncils are vested with legislative power on specified subjects, allotted sources of taxation and given powers to set up and administer their system of justice and maintain administrative and welfare services in respect of land, revenue, forests, education, public health etc.
518 of 2001.
G. BALAKRISHNAN, J. The provisions of the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution have evolved a separate scheme for the administration of the tribal areas in Assam, Meghalaya, Mizoram and Tripura through the institution of District Councils or Regional Councils.
Initially, the Division Bench granted an ex parte stay of the order of suspension of Notification granted by the learned Single Judge, but thereafter directed that the Writ Petition be heard and disposed of by the learned Single Judge.
Aggrieved by the order of suspension of the numberination to MADC, the State of Mizoram filed an appeal before the Division Bench, being Writ Appeal No.
