IMPORTANT POINT
The principles of natural justice require that affected parties be provided with notice and relevant documents to respond to allegations before any administrative action, such as dissolution, is taken.

JUDGMENT :

NELSON SAILO, J.

Heard Mr. Lalpianfela Chawngthu, learned counsel for the petitioners, Ms. Lalnunhlui, learned Government Advocate for the State respondents and Mr. Lalbiaknunga Hnamte for the respondent Nos. 10 & 11. By filing this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the Notification dated 10.07.2024 by which, Thekpui Village Council has been dissolved with effect from the date of a notification in terms of Section 25(1) of the Lushai Hills District (Village Councils) Act, 1953 (V.C Act). Election to the Village Councils in the State of Mizoram was held on 27.08.2020 including Thekpui Village Council and the petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 were elected as members of the Village Council. The petitioner No. 1 is the President of the Village Council while the petitioner No. 2 is the Treasurer. As for the petitioner No. 3, he is appointed as the Secretary of the Village Council in terms of Section 7(2) of the V.C Act.

[2.] It is the case of the petitioners that a complaint was submitted by the respondent Nos. 10 & 11 for dissolution of the Village Council to the District Local Administration Officer (respondent No. 5). The respondent No. 5, therefore vide Order dated 21.02.2024 detailed two persons to go and conduct spot verification. The respondent No. 10 is the Vice President of the Village Council, while the respondent No. 11 is the Secretary of ZPM Unit in Champhai. As detailed, the two persons went for spot verification on 23.02.2024 and thereafter submitted the verification report before the respondent No. 5. The respondent No. 5, in turn furnished the verification report to the Director, Local Administration Department (respondent No. 4) on 27.02.2024. The President/Secretary of the Village Council was then given a show-cause notice on 20.06.2024 by the Under Secretary to the Govt. of Mizoram, Local Administration Department asking for showing cause as to why the Village Council should not be dissolved. It was further stated that the show-cause reply should be submitted within 15 days from the date of issuance of the notice. In response, the petitioner No. 1 submitted his show-cause reply on 25.06.2024. Despite the reply, the Village Council came to be dissolved vide the impugned Notification dated 10.07.2024. Aggrieved, the petitioners are before this Court.

[3.] Mr. Lalpianfela Chawngthu, learned counsel submits that a copy of the complaint was not given to the petitioners. Likewise, the spot verification report was also not furnished to them so as to enable them to submit an effective reply and lastly, only the Village Council President/Secretary was given the show- cause notice. He therefore submits that the impugned notification dissolving the Village Council is not sustainable for violation of the principles of natural justice. In support of his submission, the learned counsel relies upon the following authorities:-

(1) Pu Dosanga vs. State of Mizoram & Anr., 1990 2 GLJ 97.

(2) Chandrama Tewari vs. Union of India (UOI) through General Manager, Eastern Railways, 1987 Suppl. SCC 518.

(3) Union of India & Ors. vs. Mohd. Ramzan Khan, 1991 1 SCC 588.

(4) Judgment dated 06.10.2020 passed by this Court in WP(C) No. 79/2020 (C. Vanlalpeka vs. LADC & Ors.)

(5) Common Order dated 15.12.2021 passed in WP(C) No. 81, 98 & 82/2021 (Sh. Lalchawiliana & Anr. vs. LADC & 5 Ors.)

(6) Order dated 15.11.2023 passed by this Court in WP(C) No. 82/2023 (Sh. Lalthangmawia & Anr. vs. LADC & 9 Ors.)

[4.] Ms. Lalnunhlui, learned Government Advocate, on the other hand, submits that the Village Council meeting was not called as per the relevant provisions of the V.C Act, after the election and therefore, has resulted in administrative failure. She submits that having regard to the number of households in the village, it is only apparent that the petitioners were aware about the nature of allegation made against them and the notice not having be