THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
MARLI VANKUNG, J.
Sh. Lakkhan Chakma and Ors. S/o Krishna Dhasj Chakma - Appellant
Versus
State of Mizoram and Ors. - Respondent
WP(C) No. 84 of 2025
Decided On : 19-11-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of the writ petition challenge. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. arguments against the imposition of governor's rule. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. judicial precedent on procedural requirements. (Para 12 , 13) |
| 4. state's arguments for sustaining governor's rule. (Para 14 , 15) |
| 5. court’s assessment regarding restoration of political stability. (Para 22 , 24 , 25) |
| 6. conclusive order on writ petition. (Para 26) |
JUDGMENT & ORDER :
MARLI VANKUNG, J.
Heard Mr. J.C. Lalnunsanga, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Biswajit Deb, learned Advocate General for the State respondents, who appeared through VC, assisted by Mrs. Mary L. Khiangte, learned Govt. Advocate and Ms. H.C. Deborah Lalnunziri, learned counsel for respondent No.4.
2. The instant writ petition is filed for the quashing and setting aside of the notification dated 07.07.2025, whereby the Governors’ Rule is declared upon the Chakma Autonomous District Council (CADC) for a period of 6 (six) months, and for this court to invoke its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by passing an order for the formation of a new Executive Committee, Chakma Autonomous District Council (CADC) as provided under Rule 22 of the Chakma Autonomous District Council (Constitution, Conduct of Business) Rules 2002.
3. Mr. J.C. Lalnunsanga, learned counsel for the petitioners gave a brief background of the case by submitting that on 05.06.2025, 14 (fourteen) members of District Council in the existing 19 membered House of the 11th CADC submitted an application to the Chairman, Chakma Autonomous District Council (CADC) for the immediate summoning of a special meeting as provided under Rule 33(4) of the CADC (CCB etc) Rules 2002. Upon receipt of the letter dated 05.06.2025, the Chairman of Chakma Autonomous District Council (CADC), Kamalanagar, summoned a special meeting which was to be held on 16.06.2025. However, on 10.06.2013, before the special meeting was held, 5(five) Executive Members submitted their resignation from the office of the Executive Member, as provided under Rule 24(1)(b) of the CADC (CCB etc) Rules 2002, which was accepted by the Chief Executive Member, Chakma Autonomous District Council (CADC) on 11.06.2025. Thereafter, after the acceptance of the resignation of the 5 Executive Members, one Shri. Sanjib Chakma, a sitting Executive Member submitted his resignation from the office of the Executive Member on 12.06.2025, as provided by Rule 24(1)(b) of CADC (CCB etc) Rules 2002 and his resignation was also accepted by the Chief Executive Member, Chakma Autonomous District Council (CADC).
4. A meeting was then held on 16.06.2025 by Chakma Autonomous District Council (CADC) ZPM Legislative Party, which constituted 16 Members of District Council (MDC) after new Members of District Council (MDC) joined ZPM Party from BJP. Thus, they decided to stake claim for formation of Government as they have full majority on 16.06.2025. The petitioner No. 1 also staked claim for appointment as Chief Executive Member as per Sub Rule 2(2) of Rule 22 of the CADC (CCB etc) Rules 2002 being the elected Leader of the Chakma Autonomous District Council (CADC) ZPM Legislative Party. He requested the respondent No. 2/Secretary to GOM, District Council & Minority Affairs, to take necessary action for his appointment as Chief Executive Member (CEM), CADC and that his claim was supported by the other 15 Members of District Council (MDC) to which they put their respective signatures to show their support for his appointment as Chief Executive Member (CEM), CADC.
5. Thereafter, in pursuant to the notification dated 05.06.2025, a special meeting was held on 16.06. In the special meeting, a notice of no confidence motion against the incumbent CEM, Mr. Dangu Molin Kumar Chakma and for his removal from the office of the CEM was made. Accordingly, the motion was taken up, wherein, no confidence motion was passed by 15:1 members present and voting in the 19 elec
Chandra Kishore Jha Vs. Mahavir Prasad & Ors.
Governors can impose rule under discretionary powers for political stability, even if it contradicts council advice, as per the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution.
The Governor's unilateral action in declaring the previous Chief Executive Member's appointment null was invalid, lacking required adherence to the Lai Autonomous District Council Rules, 2010, and a ....
Point of law: The preamble of the impugned Act no doubt does speak of the necessity to make provisions with respect to "transfer, allotment, occupation or use of land for any purpose likely to promot....
The Governor's discretionary power to summon a meeting under Rule 36(5) and the importance of a floor test in democratic institutions to ensure stability.
The main legal point established is that the expired term of the Autonomous District Council precludes the appellant from claiming the position of Caretaker Chairman, and the absence of provisions fo....
The arbitrary actions of the State Government and violation of statutory provisions led to the nullification of the meeting held on 07.08.2020.
The 2003 Amendment Rules allowing dual membership of both the District Council and State Legislative Assembly are constitutional, as no express prohibition is found in the Constitution's 6th Schedule....
The court maintained that a valid quorum is essential for decision-making in committees, rejecting the notion that the doctrine of necessity can allow decisions in its absence without a genuine impos....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.