The main legal principle established in the judgment is that the office of the Siem holds duties of a public character and is regulated by the Act in accordance with existing customs, leading to the Siem of Mylliem being regarded as tribal in the context of the case.

R.K. Manisana, J.- The question which has been referred to the Division Bench for decision by the Hon'ble Single Bench Judge is "whether Siem of Mylliem has to be regarded as tribal or non-tribal".

2. In T.S. No. 34 of 1965 of the Court of the Assistant to Deputy Commissioner Shillong. "Siem of Mylliem" was impleaded as a proforma defendant. A question arose whether "Siem of Mylliem' is tribal or non-tribal for the purpose of determination of jurisdiction of that Court.

3. Mr. S. Dutta, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has con­tended that Siem is elected or, nominated from the members of certain families known as the CniePs families and then appointed by the Executive Committee of the District Council and, therefore, Siem is tribal. Mr. M. Z. Ahmed the learned counsel for the respondent, has contended that the person who is appointed as the Siem holds an "office" and, as such, the question of tribal and non-tribal does not arise.

4. The question which, therefore, arises for consideration is whether the person who is appointed as the Siem holds an 'office'. The word 'office' has various meaning and we have to see which is the appropriate meaning to be described to the word in the context of the case. In Statemen (P) Ltd. ys. H. Deb, AIR 1968 SC 1495, the Supreme Court approved the observations of Lord Wright in Macmillan vs. Guest, 1942 AC 561 to the following effect.

"The word 'office' is of indefinite content. Its various meaning cover four columns of the New English Dictionary but I take as the most relevant for purpose of this case the following :

"A position or place to which certain duties are attached, especially one of a more or less public character."

In (1922) 8 Tax Case 231, it was observed that "an office or employment which was subsisting, permanent, substantive position, which had an existence independent from the person who filled it, which went on and was filled in succession by successive holders." (Emphasis added)

The above quotation was accepted by Lord Atkin in Macmillan vs. Guest, (1943) 24 Tax Case 190. The Supreme Court in Kanta Kathuria vs. Manak Chand, AIR 1970 SC 694 has held: 'In our view there is no essential difference between the definition given by Lord Wright and Lord Atkin."

In our view, in the context, 'office' means a position to which certain duties of a public character are attached. In other words, the persons holding the office is to perform certain duties and dis­charge certain obligations of a public character. But an 'office' has an existence independent of the person who filled it.

5. Let us now examine the case on hand. Section 2 (a) of the United Khasi-Jaintia Hills Autonomous District (Appointment and Succession of Chiefs and Headmen) Act, 1959, for short "the Act", defines Chief in the following terms : "Chief" means a Siem, a Lyngdoh, a Dolloi, a Sirdar or a Wahadadar, as the case may be, of any elaka". Elaka is an administrative unit in the District (see section 2 (i) of the Act). Section 3 of the Act provides for election or nomination of Chiefs. In the absence1 of Rules or Order the election is to be held or the nomination is to be made in accordance with the existing custom. No Rules and/or Order were brought to our notice. Nomination is to be made or election is to be held as is provided under section 4. Chiefs are appointed under section 5 of the Act. Section 5 provides that on the basis of result referred to in section 4, the Executive Committee shall recommend the appointment of the nominated or elected Chief to the next session of the Council, and after the approval of the Council, shall forthwith issue appointment order under such terms and conditions as the Executive Committee may provide. Section 6 provides for removal and suspension of Chiefs. In section 6 the word 'office' has been employed. Under section 6 the Chiefs may be removed from office or suspended by the Executive Committee if in its opinion any of the clause of that section is satisfies. However, no Chiefs s

Click Here to Read the rest of this document