Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Biplab Kumar Sharma, J.
Miehlo Manasia - Appellants
Vs.
State of Mizoram and Ors. - Respondent
Decided On: 08.01.2007
VOTE OF CONFIDENCE - MIZORAM DISTRICT COUNCIL - Rules 2, 6, 7, 22, 24, 25, 38, 84 of the Mara Autonomous District Council (Constitution, Conduct of Business etc.) Rules, 2002 - The court considered the issue of whether nominated members of the District Council are entitled to vote in a vote of confidence secured by the Chief Executive Member (CEM). The court analyzed the relevant provisions of the rules and the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution of India. It was held that the nominated members are not entitled to vote in the vote of confidence, as the rules clearly specify that only elected members can elect the CEM and participate in the vote of confidence. The court also found that the impugned notification issued by the Governor, excluding the nominated members from voting, was valid and in accordance with the rules and the Constitution. The court dismissed the writ petition challenging the impugned notification, stating that no interference was called for and leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
Fact of the Case:
The writ petition raised the issue of whether nominated members of the Mara Autonomous District Council in Mizoram are entitled to vote in a vote of confidence secured by the Chief Executive Member (CEM). The CEM was appointed with the support of elected members from the Mizo National Front (MNF) and the Maraland Democratic Front (MDF), as well as the 4 nominated members. The controversy arose when the CEM was directed to secure a vote of confidence in the District Council House, and an impugned notification was issued excluding the nominated members from voting.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the nominated members are not entitled to vote in the vote of confidence, as the rules clearly specify that only elected members can elect the CEM and participate in the vote of confidence. The impugned notification issued by the Governor, excluding the nominated members from voting, was held to be valid and in accordance with the rules and the Constitution. The court dismissed the writ petition challenging the impugned notification, stating that no interference was called for and leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
Issues: The main issue was whether nominated members of the District Council are entitled to vote in a vote of confidence secured by the CEM. The court also considered the maintainability of the writ petition, non-joinder of necessary parties, and suppression of material facts.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Mara Autonomous District Council (Constitution, Conduct of Business etc.) Rules, 2002, and the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution of India. The court held that the nominated members are not entitled to vote in the vote of confidence, as the rules clearly specify that only elected members can elect the CEM and participate in the vote of confidence. The court also found that the impugned notification issued by the Governor, excluding the nominated members from voting, was valid and in accordance with the rules and the Constitution.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition challenging the impugned notification, stating that no interference was called for and leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
B.K. Sharma, J.
1. The issue raised in this writ petition is as to whether the nominated members of the particular District Council in the State of Mizoram are entitled to vote relating to vote of confidence to be secured by the Chief Executive Member of the District Council.
2. The election for the District Council viz. Mara Autonomous District Council (MADC) in the State of Mizoram was held on April, 2005 in which 22 members were elected with the following party wise break-up:
Mizo National Front (MNF) - 10
Indian National Congress (INC) - 04
Maraland Democratic Front (MDF) - 07
Independent (Mr. N. Viakhu) - 01
3. Mr. Viakhu, the independent member on being supported by the members belonging to INC and MDF was appointed as the Chief Executive Member (CEM) vide notification dated 27.04.2005 (Annexure-A) issued in the name of the Governor. After such appointment of the CEM, the Executive Committee of the Council was formed with the approval of the Governor and notification to that effect was issued on 12.05.2005. Be it stated here that the MADC consists of 26 members of whom 22 are elected members and remaining 4 are nominated by the Governor. Such nomination is as per the recommendation of the CEM from amongst the persons having requisite qualification for being a member of the District Council. One of the 4 members so nominated by the Governor is the petitioner. Their nomination and appointment was notified vide notification dated 11.11.2005.
4. After the aforesaid position relating to the District Council, the members of MDF and INC withdrew their support to the CEM, but he remained as such with the support of 10 members of MNF and the 4 nominated members. It is these 4 members in respect of whom, the whole controversy has arisen. As per the provisions of the rules holding the field about which discussions have made below, the earlier executive committee members were removed by the CEM and a new executive committee was formed which was approved by the Governor. Such approval was accorded by notification dated 21.11.2005 issued in the name of the Governor with the rider that the CEM would secure vote of confidence in the District Council House by 15.12.2005.
5. One Mr. K. Hrahmo an elected member of the District Council preferred a writ petition being WP(C) No. 139/2005 challenging the aforesaid notification dated 21.11.12005 and prayed for dissolution of the District Council. It was also prayed that the Government of Mizoram be restrained from going ahead with the vote of confidence scheduled to be held on 15.12.2005 allowing the nominated members of the District Council to participate in the vote of confidence. According to the petitioner, the 4 nominated members were not entitled to vote. An interim prayer was also made for restraining the 4 nominated members from participating in the no confidence motion and for that matter from casting their votes. The interim prayer was rejected by order dated 09.12.2005. However, the writ petition was withdrawn on 10.08.2006 with liberty to approach the Court again. It was recorded in the order dated 10.08.2006 that the prayer for withdrawal was made because of subsequent development.
6. After the aforesaid development, the Annexure-E notification dated 14.12.2005 was issued deferring the no confidence motion till disposal of the writ petition. Thereafter, The Government of Mizoram in the District Council Affairs Department issued the Annexure-F letter dated 17.03.2006 requesting the CEM to seek the vote of confidence of the House immediately either before or after the Budget Session scheduled for 29.06.2006. Accordingly, on 29.03.2006 the matter was taken up and the confidence of the House was passed in favour of the CEM wherein the nominated members were allowed to cast their votes. When the matter rested thus, the Annexure-G impugned notification dated 28.11.2006 was issued directing the CEM to secure a vote of confidence of the House in a special session on 08.01.2007. In the notifi
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
