Back
1993 Supreme(Gau) 171
GAUHATI HIGH COURT
U.L.Bhat, R.K.Manisana Singh, JJ.
Jayanta Rongpi -Appellant
Versus
State of Assam and Ors. -Respondent
Civil Rule No. 2473 of 1992
Decided On : 09-07-1993
S.N.Bhuyan, A.S.Bhattacharjee, S.A.Laskar, J.P.Bhattacharjee, H.Roy, H.K.Sharma, D.N.Choudhary, B.D.Das, B.L.Singh
The Governor's satisfaction under paragraph 16 (2) of the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution of India is subjective satisfaction, but it cannot be subjected to scrutiny in the light of objective tests. The parameters of judicial scrutiny in a case like this are within narrow confines. It is necessary to bear in mind the purpose contemplated in paragraph 16 (2) of the Sixth Schedule and the connotation of the words "is satisfied that a situation has arisen in which the administration of an autonomous district or region cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of this Schedule".
Headnote:
The Court held that the impugned Notifications dated 9.11.1992 and 27.11.1992 issued by the Governor of Assam under paragraph 16 of the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution of India, assuming the powers and functions of the Karbi Anglong District Council, were illegal and void. The Court found that the Governor's satisfaction that a situation had arisen in which the administration of the district could not be carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Sixth Schedule was not based on any relevant or reasonable grounds, and that the impugned Notifications were issued for extraneous and irrelevant reasons. The Court also held that the Governor's action was vitiated by non-application of mind and unreasonableness, and amounted to a colourable exercise of power.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, erstwhile Chief Executive Member of the Karbi Anglong District Council, filed a writ petition challenging the Governor of Assam's Notifications dated 9.11.1992 and 27.11.1992, issued under paragraph 16 of the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution of India, assuming the powers and functions of the Council. The petitioner contended that the impugned Notifications were illegal and void on various grounds, including that the Governor's satisfaction that a situation had arisen in which the administration of the district could not be carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Sixth Schedule was not based on any relevant or reasonable grounds, and that the impugned Notifications were issued for extraneous and irrelevant reasons.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the impugned Notifications dated 9.11.1992 and 27.11.1992 issued by the Governor of Assam under paragraph 16 of the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution of India, assuming the powers and functions of the Karbi Anglong District Council, were illegal and void. The Court found that the Governor's satisfaction that a situation had arisen in which the administration of the district could not be carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Sixth Schedule was not based on any relevant or reasonable grounds, and that the impugned Notifications were issued for extraneous and irrelevant reasons. The Court also held that the Governor's action was vitiated by non-application of mind and unreasonableness, and amounted to a colourable exercise of power.
Issues: 1. Whether the Governor's satisfaction that a situation had arisen in which the administration of the district could not be carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Sixth Schedule was based on any relevant or reasonable grounds? 2. Whether the impugned Notifications were issued for extraneous and irrelevant reasons? 3. Whether the Governor's action was vitiated by non-application of mind and unreasonableness? 4. Whether the Governor's action amounted to a colourable exercise of power?
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the Governor's satisfaction that a situation had arisen in which the administration of the district could not be carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Sixth Schedule was not based on any relevant or reasonable grounds, and that the impugned Notifications were issued for extraneous and irrelevant reasons. The Court also held that the Governor's action was vitiated by non-application of mind and unreasonableness, and amounted to a colourable exercise of power. The Court relied on the following principles in reaching its decision: * The Governor's satisfaction under paragraph 16 (2) of the Sixth Schedule is subjective satisfaction, but it cannot be subjected to scrutiny in the light of objective tests. * The parameters of judicial scrutiny in a case like this are within narrow confines. * It is necessary to bear in mind the purpose contemplated in paragraph 16 (2) of the Sixth Schedule and the connotation of the words "is satisfied that a situation has arisen in which the administration of an autonomous district or region cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of this Schedule". * The Governor must be satisfied that a situation has arisen in which the administration of the autonomous district cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Sixth Schedule. This would mean break-down of the constitutional machinery in the autonomous district.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned Notifications dated 9.11.1992 and 27.11.1992. The Court also directed the respondents to restore the position existing prior to 9.11.1992 within two weeks from the date of the judgment. The Court further declared that no action taken by the Administrator on and after 9.11.1992 and until the date of the judgment shall be regarded as illegal on account of the quashing of the two Notifications dated 27.11.1992.
Petitioner, erstwhile Chief Executive Member (CEM) of the Karbi Anglong District Council (for short, the Council), filed the writ petition on 16.11.1992 and the same was amended subsequently. The relief claimed in the amended writ petition is to quash Annexure 21 Notification dated 9.11.1992 issued by the Government of Assam, Annexure 22 Notification dated 9.11.92 issued by the Government of Assam and Annexures 27, 28 and 29 Notifications dated 27.11.1992 issued by the Government. On behalf of respondents 1 to 4, Deputy Secretary to the Government of Assam in the Hill Areas Department has filed an affidavit dated 17.12.92. Fifth respondent filed a counter affidavit dated 24.2.93. Petitioner filed reply affidavits dated 22.12.92 and 22.2.1993.
2. On 9.11.1992 petitioner filed Civil Rule No. 2407 of 1992 seeking a direction to the respondents to issue notice to the Council giving sufficient Opportunity in the event of any action to dissolve the Council under paragraph 16 of the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution of India. Rule was issued on that day. The Court further directed that "till return of notice no action shall be taken in respect of Kai bi Anglong District Council". However, on the same day the Government issued two Notifications to remain in force for six months -one 'dissolving' the Council and assuming with immediate effect administration of the district purportedly under paragraph 16 (2) of the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution and the other appointing the Deputy Commissioner of the district to exercise all the functions and powers exercisable by the Council, the Executive Committee, Chief Executive Member, Chairman, Deputy Chairman, 'Executive Members and Deputy Executive Members of the Council subject to such directions as may be issued by the Governor from time to time and designating him as the Administrator. Though the Notification bear the date 9.11.1992, they were published in the Gazette only on 13.11.1992 On the same day the petitioner filed an application in Civil Rule No. 2407 of 1992 stating that police officers forcibly entered the Council office and removed the name plates of the Chief Executive Member and Executive Members and obstructed them from entering the office. The Court passed an order stating that if the Council has not been dissolved by the competent authority, the Deputy Commissioner shall take necessary steps for allowing the members to function in accordance with law. The Court also directed that if the earlier order dated 9.11.1992 cannot he compile 1 with by the Deputy Commissioner, he shall make a report to the Court immediately. The Deputy Commissioner on 16.11.1992 sent a WT message to the Deputy Registrar of the Court informing about the Governor's order dated 9.11.1992 and further order of the same date appointing the Administrator.
3. On 17.11.1992 petitioner filed the present writ petition to quash the two orders dated 9.11.1992 and seeking direction to the respondents to allow him and other Members of the Council to function as such. The Court on that day called for the records and directed the Administrator not to take any major policy decision and further directed that the members of the Council occupying quarters shall not be evicted. Rule was issued on 19.11.1992.
4. While so, on 27.11.1992. the Governor issued Notification withdrawing the earlier Notification dated 9.11.1992 issued under paragraph 16 (2) of the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution with immediate effect. On the same day Governor issued a fresh Notification under paragraph 16 (2) of the Sixth Schedule assuming to himself with immediate effect the administration,' functions and powers of the Council for a period of six months from 27.11.1992 and declaring that all functions and powers vested in the statutory authorities shall be exercised by such person or authority as may be appointed in this behalf. On the same day another Notification was issued appointing the Deputy Commis
