The State Government has the power to constitute, dissolve and reconstitute an ad hoc committee under the third proviso to S.22(1) of the Assam Panchayati Raj Act, 1972, and the principles of natural justice must be followed before passing an order dissolving an ad hoc committee on the grounds of moral turpitude or other grounds which stigmatize the committee or its members.

LAHIRI, Actg. C.J.:- The true construction of the provisions contained in the 3rd Proviso to S.22(1) and Ss.135, 136 and 138 of the Assam Panchayati Raj Act, 1972, for short "the Act" falls for determination in this writ application.

2. Petitioner No.1 claims that he is a social worker, "a recognized labour leader" and he has devoted himself to "self-less service" to the community. However, he is fighting for the office of the Chief Administrator of the Mahkuma Parishad, to be precise, just for the office of the Chief Administrator of an ad hoc committee of the Mahkuma Parishad. What is the fight for? Is it for doing better social service than his adversary? The field of social service is large, wide and extensive. Should social workers spend their time, money and energy in fighting out litigations. In the litigation the Tezpur Mahkuma Parishad has also been added as a party. Mr. G. K. Talukdar, learned counsel for the Mahkurna Parishad, respondent 6, has stated that the Parishad has to spend time, money and energy in this litigation. That apart, Mr. Talukdar submits that during the continuance of the writ proceedings the Mahkuma Parishad was unsure and uncertain as to who was the Chief Administrator. The functioning of the Mahkuma Parishad was surely affected. Further, those connected with the Mahkuma Parishad had a doubtful feeling as to whether the Administrator appointed by the Government had jurisdiction. In such a situation, neither the Administrator nor the Mahkuma Parishad could function properly. It certainly affected the people who are the beneficiaries of getting appropriate care and attention from the Mahkuma Parishad. The fight is for an office the life of which is as unstable as water. Is it the fight for power that goes with the office or is it for providing better service to the people? We wonder why social workers, instead of litigating do not conserve their energy to serve the people in the best possible manner. We also find, with regret, that in the instant case, no effective efforts were made by those who are in charge of the affairs of the State to resolve the dispute amicably. However, in the instant case, there is no allegation of breach of fundamental rights of the petitioners. The grievance of the petitioners is that their legal rights have been affected by the impugned orders.

3. The term of office of the Chairman, Chief Executive Councillor and other Councillors of the Tezpur Mahkuma Parishad came to an end. However, the State Government came to the conclusion that there was no possibility to hold a fresh election for constituting a new Mahkuma Parishad immediately, extended the term of the elected body for the maximum period of 9 months. After the expiry of the said period, the State Government had no other alternative but to make an alternative arrangement of constituting an ad hoc committee for the purpose of carrying out the functions of the Mahkuma Parishad till the constitution of the new Mahkuma Parishad.

4. On the expiry of the extended period, as alluded the State Government in exercise of the power under proviso 3 to S.22(1) of the Act, constituted an ad hoc committee on 13-4-1985 for the purpose of carrying out the functions of the Mahkuma Parishad consisting of Shri Prasanna Barua, respondent 5 and others. Apart from the ad hoc committee, it is stated, several other sub-committees were constituted with the members to deal with the matters connected with public health, education, minor irrigation, veterinary etc. As averred in para 6 of the writ petition, in view of the serious allegations made by petitioner 1 against respondent 5 relating to alleged misappropriation the Government by a notification dt.5-6-84 (vide Annexure-2 to the writ petition) dissolved the ad hoc committee. After the dissolution, the State Government, in exercise of the power conferred under 3rd proviso to S.22(1) of The Act by a notification dated 6-6-84 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) constituted a new ad h