The Executive Committee's decision to hold a referendum regarding the Dolloi's confidence is valid, following customary practices, and does not breach natural justice.

1. This is an application under Art.226 of the Constitution directed against a notice dated 2nd July, 1969 issued by the Secretary, Executive Committee, Jowai Autonomous District Council to the Headmen of Raliang Elaka, requiring them to send a list of all male voters of the villages who are above eighteen years of age and entitled to vote for the post of the Dolloi as the Executive Committee is satisfied that there were reasonable grounds to make a referendum as prayed for by the Chairman and Secretary of the Durbar Elaka, Raliang. A Rule was obtained on 21st August, 1969 and holding of the referendum was stayed.

2. The petitioner is the Dolloi of Raliang. It appears that general allegations were brought against him by the respondents Nos. 5 and 6 and a public meeting was held on 28th June, 1969, under the orders of the Executive Committee of the District Council and the Revenue Officer, who was present in the meeting, submitted a report recommending the proposal for referendum to be taken to ascertain whether the petitioner still enjoyed the confidence of the majority of the people in his Elaka. On receipt of the report of the Revenue Officer, the Executive Committee, before taking any further action on the matter, decided for a referendum of the electors with regard to the petitioner's dolloiship. It is this attempt of the Executive Committee to hold a referendum which has been sought to be nipped in the bud by means of this application.

3. The petitioner states that there are several cases pending with regard to his forest and respondents Nos. 5 and 6 are creating unnecessary harassment and dificulties in enjoyment of his property. A proceeding under S.107, Criminal Procedure Code was also instituted.

4. The petitioner by an application for amendment of his petition wanted to challenge the provisions of the United Khasi - Jaintia Hills Autonomous District (Appointment and Succession of Chiefs and Headmen) Act, 1959, hereinafter called 'the Act', and particularly S.6 thereof, but has not raised these questions in the course of the hearing before us.

5. The learned Advocate - General, Assam, on behalf of the petitioner, makes only two submissions : Firstly, he submits that the Executive Committee has no jurisdiction to order for a referendum without previously giving the petitioner a reasonable opportunity to show cause against such a step; secondly, he submits that the Executive Committee's action in ordering for a referendum is mala fide.

6. With regard to the first submission, the petitioner admits that he holds the office of Dolloi under the District Council and although his Sanad is not filed by the petitioner, it is admitted that the District Council has power to remove him even under the Sanad if he loses confidence of the electors or the people. In any event, S.6 of the Act provides for removal and suspension of Chiefs and the same may be read :
"The Chief may be remoyed from office or suspended by the Executive Committee if in its opinion -
(a) xx xx xx
(b) he has lost the confidence of the majority of his electors or the people of his Elaka;
(c) xx xx xx
(d) xx xx xx
Provided that every such case shall be placed before the District Council at its next session :
Provided further that no Chief shall be removed from office unless he is given an opportunity of being heard."
Since S.6 has not been challenged, we will assume the section to be valid and operative in the case of the petitioner. This section therefore empowers the Executive Committee to take action for removal and suspension of a Chief under certain conditions. The Executive Committee has to form its opinion. How the Executive Committee will arrive at its opinion is not provided for in the Act. I