IMPORTANT POINT
The Deputy Commissioner's decision regarding VDB member selection must be reasonable and based on evidence of majority support from clans.

JUDGMENT :

PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA, J.

Heard the learned Senior Counsel Mr. C.T. Jamir assisted by Mr. Aliba Ozukum, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. E. Tibha Phom, learned Government Advocate and Mr. Moa Imchen, learned Senior Government Advocate appearing for the State of Nagaland.

2. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 08.11.2023 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Wokha, Nagaland vide Order No.DCW/COUN-105/YIMKHA/VDB/2023.

3. The issue relates to selection/election of members in the Village Development Board (hereinafter referred to as “the VDB”) at Yimkha Village, Wokha, Nagaland. The VDB consists of 7(seven) members and election is conducted in terms of Village Development Model Rules, 1980 (Revised).

4. Yimkha Village Council issued a Notice on 28.09.2023 for selection/election of VDB members. In this process, different clans nominate their representatives. Accordingly, Ezung Clan selected the first petitioner and the Yentso Ngullie Clan selected the second petitioner as their representatives. Majority of the members of the clans selected the first and the second petitioners. The decision to select the petitioners to represent their respective clans was taken up in a separate meetings held on 28.09.2023. On 02.10.2023, the Chairman of Yimkha Village Council wrote a letter to the Deputy Commissioner, Wokha, Nagaland asking for security to conduct election/selection of VDB members.

5. The date of election was fixed on 28.09.2023. But on that day, election could not be held because the persons who had the support of the majority of clan members was not selected/elected. It is alleged that the Chairman of the Yimkha Village Council favoured the private respondent nos.5 and 6. It is further alleged that the said Chairman illegally selected the respondent nos.5 and 6 as members of the VDB. According to the petitioners, the selection of the private respondent nos.5 and 6 was arbitrary decision of the Chairman of the Yimkha Village Council and the Notification issued by the Deputy Commissioner on 08.11.2023 is also illegal.

6. The State respondents contended that according to Rule 4(d) of the Village Development Model Rules, 1980 (Revised), it clearly states that the members of the Management Committee of VDB shall be chosen by the Village Council concerned for the tenure of 3(three) years unless decided otherwise by the Village Council by resolution and under Rule 26 wherein mentioned that all disputes except those in which the lending institution is a party, arising out of the VDB Management Committee working and decision shall be settled first by the Village Council and further provided under Rule 27 that any dispute as to the interpretation of those Rules, the Deputy Commissioner’s/ Addl. Deputy Commissioner’s decision thereon shall be final subject to the approval of the Government.

7. The learned Senior Counsel Mr. Jamir has pointed out to the Village Development Model Rules, 1980 (Revised) and submitted that Rule 26 states that all disputes, except those in which the lending institution is a party, arising out of VDB Management Committee working and decision shall be settled first by the Village Council. Similarly, Rule 27 shows that on any disputes as to the interpretation of the Rules, the Deputy Commissioner’s, Addl. Deputy Commissioner’s decision thereon shall be final subject to the approval of the Government.

8. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel of both sides.

9. There is no dispute that all clans select their representatives to be members of the VDB. Both the petitioners have claimed that they have the support of the majority of their respective clans and the private respondent nos.5 and 6 do not have the support of the majority of their clans.

10. In a democratic country, t