The Village Council Chairman can only be appointed by following the procedure set out in section 7 of the Nagaland Village and Area Councils Act, 1978.

This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 13th August, 1993 in Civil Rule No.56 (K) of 1993.

2. We have heard Mr. NN Saikia, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Mr. CT Jamir, learned Junior Government Advocate, Nagaland appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and Mr. A. Roy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 5.

3. The facts for the purpose of adjudicating the present appeal are that there is a Village Council constituted under the Nagaland Village and Area Councils Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the village Phusacheduma. Admittedly Shri Hushetso Ratuo was the Village Council Chairman who on 3rd January, 1993 in the meeting of the Village Council which was attended by 26 GBs and VCMs tendered his resignation which was duly accepted. The members of the council present in the meeting held on 3rd January, 1993 also decided to allow Shri Veyiri, Head GB to function as Village Council Chairman till the new election was held. The Extra Assistant Commissioner, Chetheba by calling the GBs and VCMs of Village Council, Phuscheduma, recommended the name of respondent No! 5 to function as Village Council Chairman and the aforesaid proposal was approved by the State of Nagaland also. It is this action of the respondents in appointing respondent No. 5 as the Village Council Chairman of Phusacheduma village which was challenged by the petitioner-appellant by filing Civil Rule 56 (K) of 1993.

4. The learned Single Judge negatived the contentions raised by the petitioner-appellant and held that the action of the Extra Assistant Commissioner in recommending the name of respondent No. 5 as Chairman of the Village Council was in accordance with the provisions of the Act and required no interference and thus the petition filed by the petitioner-appellant was dismissed. It is this order passed by the learned Single Judge which is under challenge in the present appeal.

5. Mr. Saikia, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-appellant has urged before us that the Chairman of the Village Council can only he appointed by following the procedure set out in section 7 of the Act. Section 7 of the Act reads as follows :

"7. (1) The Village council will Choose a member as chairman of the Council (2) During the absence of (he Chairman from any sitting of the Village Council a member of the Council nominated by Hie Chairman shall act as Chairman."

Mr. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 5 has relied on the provisions of section 22 of the Act which runs as follows :

"22. Subject to the general superintendence of the State Government /the Deputy Commissioner/the Additional Deputy Commissioner 01 Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil) incharge of the Sub-Division. Extra Assistant Commissioner or Circle Officer shall have control overall the Village Councils within his jurisdiction."

6. On the basis of the provisions of section 22 of the Act. it has been contended by Mr. Roy that the Extra Assistant Commissioner was entitled to c call the meeting of the Village Council and also recommend the name of respondent No. 5 as Village Council Chairman to the State Government for approval. It is on that basis that the order passed in favour of respondent No. 5 by the State Government has been justified and also on the ground that out of 29 members of the Village Council, in the meeting held in the office of the Extra Assistant Commissioner, the majority i.e. 15 GBs and VCMs had demonstrated their willingness to appoint respondent No. 5 as Village Council Chairman.

7. After carefully considering the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the materials filed in the Civil Rule we are of the opinion that after the resignation tendered by the earlier Chairman of the Village Council on 3rd January, 1993, no inkling of the Village Council was ever held. Provisions of section 7 of the Act are mandatory and the only manner in which th