The primary meaning of the 'Rule of Law' is that any action taken or any act done by which a right of a person is affected, that must be done according to law. The affected persons may always resort to the Court of law and if the le­gal pedigree is not found to be perfectly in order the Court will invalidate the act, which he can then safely disregard. The next important meaning of the 'Rule of Law' is that no one should be punished except for some legally defined crime. In Administrative Law natural justice is well-defined concept which comprises two fundamental rights of fair procedure; that a man may not be judge in his own cause, and that a man's, defence must always be fairly heard. In Courts of law and in Statutory Tribunals these Rules must be observed. They equa­lly apply to administrative power, and sometimes also to pow­ers created by contract.

[See Wade's Administrative Law]

2. The supremacy of law demands that every citizen is entitled to have his rights adjudicated in the Court of law and to call any question in a Court of Law including the question of the legality of any act done by an administrative officer. Within the field of public law the scope of mandamus is wide and the Court may use it freely to prevent breach of duty and injustice but it is a discretionary remedy. Mandamus is often used as an adjunct to certiorari if a Tribunal or an authority acts in a matter where it is not fair to act at all, certiorari will quash the decision and the prohibition will prevent further unlawful proceedings. If there is power to act, but the power is abused by breach of natural justice or if there is an error on the face of the record, certiorari will quash and mandamus may issue simultaneously to recall a proper hear­ing. Defective decisions or orders are frequently quashed by an appropriate writ. Although the issuance of writs under Article 226 of the Constitution are discretionary remedies, the Courts' discretion must be limited by the basic rules of judicial control.

3. In this application the petitioner has prayed for issu­ance of a writ in the nature of mandamus and/or certiorari or any other writ or direction with a prayer to quash the order dated 25.2.86 and also the notice dated 26.2.86 as per Annexures-6 and 7 respectively appended to the writ petition. Though initially the petitioner challenged validity of the Act known as "United Khasi Jaintia Hills Autonomous Districts (Appointment and Succession of Chiefs and Headmen) Act, 1959 (U. K. J. Hills Act II of 1959) as amended" but in course of argument, the teamed counsel for the petitioner abandoned this challenge. Therefore, in this writ petition we are only called upon to decide about the validity and legality of the 2 (two) Annexure, na­mely, Annexures 6 and 7 dated 25.2.86 and 26.2.86 respective­ly. To take up this writ petition for our consideration we must look back to the history sheet of the case and to get the intrinsic facts given in the petition.

4. The writ petitioner belongs to the Scheduled Tribe in the State of Meghalaya and comes from Syiem clan of Mylliem Elaka. Prior to the commencement of the Constitution of India in the entire area comprising of Khasi Hills District barring few villages, there were 25 Syiemship with limited powers for some estates. Their succession was hereditary, but in most cases they were elected by an electoral college. But the election in many cases conferred to the members of certain families known as Chiefs families. But they had to get recognition of the British Government through Crown representatives before the Chef could exercise any power. The recognition was affected by means of Sandals (granted to the Chief). To control the Chief and in cases of misconduct, dereliction of duties or in case of oppre­ssion, the Chief could be removed and that power was reserved by the British Government through the Crown representative. But before taking such action, the custom that prevailed in a particular estate regarding t