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

2025 Supreme(Gau) 354

THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
NELSON SAILO, J
Sh. Lalremruata Cherput S/o Thangfala And 5 Ors. - Appellant
Versus
State Of Mizoram (R/b The Chief Secretary To The Govt. Of Mizoram) And 15 Ors. - Respondent
WP(C) 88 / 2024
Decided On : 27-01-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Lalpianfela Chawngthu Advocate
For the Respondent: Addl. AG/GA, Mizoram for R1 - 6

IMPORTANT POINT
The dissolution of a Village Council is invalid if the members are not provided with necessary documents to respond to allegations, violating principles of natural justice.

Headnote:

(A) Lushai Hills District (Village Councils) Act, 1953 - Section 25(1) - Dissolution of Village Council - Petitioners challenged the dissolution notification citing violation of natural justice due to non-supply of complaint and verification report - Court found that the entire Village Council was dissolved without affording individual members a chance to respond, violating principles of natural justice. (Paras 8 , 10 , 12 )

(B) Natural Justice - Requirement of reasonable opportunity - The court emphasized that the notice receiver must be aware of the complaint and findings against them to respond effectively, and mere issuance of a notice is insufficient. (Paras 10 , 11 )

Facts of the case:

Petitioners, elected members of Hnahlan Village Council, challenged the dissolution notification issued by the State, claiming they were not given the complaint or verification report prior to dissolution. (Paras 1 , 2 )

Findings of Court:

The court held that the dissolution notification was unsustainable due to the violation of natural justice principles, as the petitioners were not given a fair opportunity to respond. (Paras 12 )

Issues: The main issues were whether the petitioners were afforded a fair opportunity to respond to the allegations against them and the validity of the dissolution of the Village Council. (Paras 8 , 10 )

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the dissolution of the Village Council was invalid as it violated the principles of natural justice by not providing the petitioners with necessary documents to respond to the allegations. (Paras 12 )

Result: The impugned Notification dated 26.07.2024 is hereby set aside.

JUDGMENT :

NELSON SAILO, J.

Heard Mr. Lalpianfela Chawngthu, learned counsel for the petitioners, Ms. Caroline K Lungawipuii, learned Government Advocate for the State respondents and Mr. Lalbiaknunga Hnamte, learned counsel for the private respondents. By filing this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the Notification dated 26.07.2024 by which, Hnahlan Village Council has been dissolved by the State respondents in exercise with the powers conferred by Section 25(1) of the Lushai Hills District (Village Councils) Act, 1953 (V.C Act). It is the case of the petitioners that except for petitioner No. 6, they were elected as members of the Hnahlan Village Council on 27.08.2020. The petitioner No. 1 is the President, the petitioner No. 2 is the Vice President, petitioner No. 3 is the Treasurer, while the petitioner Nos. 4 & 5 is members of the Village Council. As for petitioner No. 6, he is the Secretary of the Village Council appointed in terms of Section 7(2) of the V.C Act.

[2.] According to the petitioners, a complaint was submitted on 27.02.2024 by the private respondent Nos. 7 to 15 against the petitioners alleging illegal allotment of lands and constitution of fake Land Committee before the District Local Administration Officer (respondent No. 5). The respondent Nos. 9 to 15 are Presidents of different ZPM Units of Hnahlan village while the respondent No. 16 is the President of ZPM, Champhai North Block-II. Pursuant to the submission of the complaint, the respondent No. 5 ordered for a spot verification on 26.04.2024 by 4 (four) Officials vide Order dated 23.04.2024. Spot verification was accordingly conducted on the stipulated date and therefore, the spot verification report was submitted to the respondent No. 5 and thereafter to the respondent No. 4 vide Letter dated 29.04.2024. Upon receipt of the spot verification, a show-cause notice was issued to the President/Secretary of the Village Council on 18.16.2024 stating that a reply should be submitted in writing within a period of 15 days from the date of issuance of a letter why Hnahlan Village Council should not be dissolved. The petitioner No. 1, on 26.06.2024, submitted the show-cause reply to the Under Secretary to the Govt. of Mizoram, Local Administration Department but vide the impugned Notification dated 26.07.2024, Hnahlan Village Council came to be dissolved with effect from the date of the notification. Being aggrieved, the petitioners are before this Court.

[3.] Mr. Lapianfela Chawngthu, learned counsel submits that prior to the issuance of the impugned notification dissolving the Village Council, the petitioners were not given a copy of the complaint submitted against them on 27.02.2024 and also the spot verification report submitted by the detailed officers. The show-cause notice dated 18.06.2024, without a copy of the spot verification report and the complaint, was given only to the President/Secretary of the Village Council and therefore, the impugned notification dissolving the Village Council is in clear violation of the principles of natural justice and therefore should be set aside.

[4.] 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.
    (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.)

[5.] Ms. Caroline K Lungawipuii, learned Government Advocate, on the other hand, submits that from the explanat


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
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top