SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2019 Supreme(Gau) 885

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
NELSON SAILO, J.
T. Zakunga - Appellant
Versus
Lai Autonomous District Council - Respondent
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 88 of 2019
Decided On : 09-08-2019

Advocates Appeared:
A.R. Malhotra, Adv., Mary Lalawmpuii, Adv., Lalbiakkima, Adv., B. Lalramenga, Adv., C. Lalramzauva, Adv., Emily L. Chhangte, Adv., Lalnunsiama, Adv., C. Zoramchhana, Adv.

The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Rule 11(6) and Rule 11(7) of the CCB Rules in disqualifying members for defection and the role of the Governor in removing disqualifications under Rule 12.

Headnote:

Defection - Lai Autonomous District Council - Rule 11(6), Rule 11(7), Rule 12 - The court discussed the provisions of Rule 11(6) and Rule 11(7) of the Lai Autonomous District Council (Constitution, Conduct of business etc.,) Rules, 2010 and their application in disqualifying members for defection. The court also highlighted the role of the Governor in removing disqualifications under Rule 12 and the procedure for reference to the Governor for decision.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, elected members of the Lai Autonomous District Council, sought disqualification of certain members for defection after they withdrew support to the Congress Legislature Party (CLP) and formed a new party. The Chairman of the LADC declined to disqualify the members, leading to the petitioners approaching the court.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the withdrawal of support by the members to the CLP and their formation of a new party attracted the provisions of Rule 11(6) and Rule 11(7) of the CCB Rules. It directed the matter to be referred to the Governor for consideration and disposal in accordance with Rule 12 of the CCB Rules.

Issues: The main issue was the disqualification of members for defection under Rule 11(6) and Rule 11(7) of the CCB Rules, and the Chairman's refusal to invoke these rules.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the withdrawal of support and formation of a new party by the members attracted the provisions of Rule 11(6) and Rule 11(7), and the matter should be referred to the Governor for decision in accordance with Rule 12 of the CCB Rules.

Final Decision: The writ petition was disposed of with a direction to refer the matter to the Governor for consideration and disposal in accordance with Rule 12 of the CCB Rules.

JUDGMENT :

Nelson Sailo, J.

Heard Mr. A.R. Malhotra, the learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. C. Lalramzauva, the learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. Emily L. Chhangte for the respondent Nos. 2 to 16. Mr. B. Lalramenga, the learned counsel appears for respondent No.1, while Mr. C. Zoramchhana, the learned Addl. Advocate General appears for respondent No.17 and they submit that the respondents they represent will not be filing any affidavit-in-opposition.

2. Brief facts of the case may be noticed at the outset. The petitioners are elected members to the Lai Autonomous District Council (LADC) and they belong to the Indian National Congress (INC) political party. The respondent Nos. 4, 5, 6 and 7 are also elected members to the LADC from the INC party while the respondent No. 8, is an elected independent candidate who supported the Congress Legislature Party (CLP) after being elected. The respondent Nos. 9 to 16 are elected members from the Mizo National Front (MNF) party. Be it stated herein that there are 25 seats in the LADC and against which, the petitioners and the private respondents have been elected. In addition to this, 3 members have been nominated by the Governor. The INC party having secured 16 seats and supported by one (1) independent candidate against 8 seats secured by the MNF formed the Executive Committee with the petitioner No. 1 as the Chief Executive Member (CEM).

3. The CLP in view of the change of the Ministry in the State after the General Election to the State Legislative Assembly called a meeting on 24.06.2019 (Annexure-5 and 5A) to discuss the future of the CLP in the LADC. The meeting was attended by as many as 14 members including the Leader and Secretary of CLP. In the said meeting, it was resolved that as the members are elected from the INC, they will stand by the party and under the leadership of the petitioner No. 1. However, two days thereafter on 26.06.2019 (Annexure-4), the respondent Nos. 4 to 8 withdrew their support to the CLP by submitting a written communication to the CEM. Following the withdrawal of support, the petitioners along with the nominated members submitted their representation to the Chairman, LADC (respondent No. 2) on 26.06.2019 (Annexure-6) to disqualify the respondent Nos. 4 to 8, since they have given their support to the MNF Party to form a new Government. It was therefore represented that the respondent Nos. 4 to 8 be disqualified in terms of the provisions of Rule 11 (6) and (7) of the Lai Autonomous District Council (Constitution, Conduct of business etc.,) Rules, 2010 (CCB Rules). A similar communication was made by the petitioner No.1 to the respondent No.2 in his capacity as CEM on the same day i.e., 26.06.2019 (Annexure-7).

4. The Chairman, LADC however vide the impugned Communication dated 27.06.2019 (Annexure-8) informed the CEM that Rule 11 (6) (a)(b)(c) and Sub Rule (7) has no application as was represented, since the respondent Nos. 4 to 8 have not joined any other political party. Further, as there were no genuine documents to prove that the mentioned members joined other political party officially, he as the Chairman of the LADC cannot disqualify them as provided by the Rules. Being aggrieved thus, the petitioners are before this Court.

5. Mr. A.R. Malhotra, the learned counsel submits that the action of the respondent Nos. 4 to 8 clearly attract the provisions of Rules 11 (6) and (7) of the CCB Rules. He submits that a sitting member of the LADC as per the said provisions will be disqualified, if he has voluntarily given up the political party which sponsored him as a candidate on the date of his nomination and joined any other political party after his election or his nomination as a member. Likewise, an independent candidate can be disqualified if he has given support to any political party but later withdraws it and supports another political party.

6. Mr. A.R. Malhotra further submits that under Rule 12 of the CCB Rules, the Governor is empo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top