Meghalaya High Court
Shri. Bloin Shylla And Anr vs State Of Meghalaya And Ors on 3 February, 2014
Author: Chief Justice
Bench: Chief Justice
1
THE HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
WP(C) No. 3 of 2014
Shri. Bloin Shylla & Another ....... Petitioners
- VRS -
State of Meghalaya & Others. ...... Respondents
Mr. GS Massar, Senior Advocate with Mr. JM Thangkhiew, Mr. JMT Blah, Mr. G Kharsyad, Advocates for Petitioners.
Mr. KS Kynjing, ND Chullai, HS Thangkhiew, Sr. Advocate with Mr. N Mozika, Advocate for Respondents.
Along with WP(C) No. 8 of 2014 Shri. Adelbert Nongrum & Others ....... Petitioners
- VRS -
State of Meghalaya & Others. ...... Respondents Mr. K Paul, Mr. S Thapa, Ms. A Paul, Ms. B Khriam, Mrs. R Dutta, Mr. GA Dkhar, Mr. S Panthi, Advocates for Petitioners. Mr. VGK Kynta, Sr. Advocate and Mr. ND Chullai, Senior Govt. Advocate for Respondents WP(C) No. 22 of 2014 Shri. Bloin Shylla & Another. ....... Petitioners
- VRS -
State of Meghalaya & Others. ...... Respondents Mr. GS Massar, Senior Advocate with Mr. JM Thangkhiew, Mr. JMT Blah, Mr. G Kharsyad, L Kurbag, Advocates for Petitioners. Mr. ND Chullai, and Shri. HS Thangkhiew, Sr, Advocates for Respondents.
And WP(C) No. 23 of 2014 Shri. Carmelstone Sohtun ....... Petitioner
- VRS -
State of Meghalaya & Others. ...... Respondents Mr. K Paul, Mr. S Thapa, Ms. A Paul, Ms. B Khriam, Mrs. R Dutta, Ms H Kristazi, Ms L Warjri, GA Dkhar, Advocates for Petitioners. Mr. VGK Kynta and Mr. ND Chullai, Sr. Advocates for Respondents. 2 HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE, and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R. SEN (Oral : Hon'ble Prafulla C Pant, Chief Justice) In all the above four writ petitions, delimitation of the constituencies of Autonomous District councils has been challenged. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties considering the urgency of the matter, these writ petitions are heard, and being disposed of today summarily, by this common Order.
2. Briefly stated, the Jaintia Hills Autonomous District Council (JHADC) and Khasi Hills Autonomous District Council (KHADC), were created under the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution of India. Elections are slated to be held for the two Districts Councils in February 2014. The power to make rules relating to such elections is given to the District Councils under paragraph 2(7) of the Sixth Schedule.
3. Sub-paragraph (6) paragraph 2 of the Sixth Schedule empowered the Governor to make rules for the constitution of the first District Council, in consultation with the then tribal councils and representatives of tribal organizations within the Autonomous proposed District Councils, relating composition of the District Councils, delimitation of the territorial constituencies, for the purposes of elections to these Councils. Consequently, Assam and Meghalaya Autonomous Districts (Constitution of District Councils) Rules, 1951 were framed by the Governor.
4. Sub-paragraph-7 paragraph 2 of the Sixth Schedule empowers the District Council to make rules with the approval of the Governor in the matter regarding which the Governor was 3 empowered to make rules under sub-paragraph (6) of paragraph 2. In other words, as to the delimitation of the territorial constituencies for the purposes of elections to the District Councils after the same were constituted under the rules framed by the Governor under sub- paragraph (6), such District Council have the power to make fresh rules.
5. Section-21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 provides that, "where, by any Central Act or Regulations or power to issue notifications, orders, rules or bye-laws is conferred, then that power includes a power, exercisable in the like manner and subject to the like sanction and conditions (if any), to add to, amend, vary or rescind any notifications orders, rules or bye-laws so issued."
6. On behalf of the petitioners, it is argued that the District Councils had no power to amend the rules framed by the Governor as they have not framed rules to substitute rules made by the Governor.
7. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and we are of the view that, since at the time of the constitution of the first District Council there were no rules as such by sub-paragraph (6) paragraph 2 of the Sixth Schedule, the Governor was empowered to make rules for composition of the District Council including power of delimitation of territorial constituencies for the purposes of elections of the Councils. By sub-paragraph (7) paragraph 2 of the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution the power to make rules, after the District Council has been constituted, vested with the District Councils with the rider that the same were required to be approved by the Governor. As 4 such, it cannot be said that the District Councils have no power to make amendments in the rules framed by the Governor known as Assam and Meghalaya Autonomous Districts (Constitution of District Councils) Rules, 1951.
8. The learned counsel for the parties conceded that, Jaintia Hills Autonomous District Council (Constitution of District Councils) (Amendment) Rules, 2013 and Khasi Hills Autonomous District Council (Constitution of District Councils) (Amendment) Rules, 2013 have received assent of the Governor of the State of Meghalaya. As such, we do not find that the impugned rules for the delimitation of the constituencies of the two District Councils suffer from any un- constitutionality.
9. Rule-72 of the Assam and Meghalaya Autonomous Districts (Constitution of District Councils) Rules, 1951 provides that, all the rules which may be made by the District Council under sub-paragraph (7) of paragraph 2 of the Sixth Schedule with regard to the matters specified in sub-paragraph (6) may be drafted by the Executive Committee of the District Council which were required to be placed by the Chief Executive Member before the District Council for consideration, and the District Council in session shall have the power to amend or re-consider or replace them either in the Council or with the help of the Selected Committee appointed by the Council. From the Annexures filed in the writ petitions, it is clear that the Executive Committee of concerned District Councils submitted Draft Rules relating to delimitation and the same were placed before the District Councils which after discussion passed the same. 5
10. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that, objections raised to the proposed delimitations were not properly heard by the concerned authorities. However, perusal of the writ petitions shows that, objections were invited and disposed of, and the only point raised by the petitioners in the writ petitions is that, they were not properly heard.
11. On behalf of the respondents, it is pointed out that term of the members of the Jaintia Hills Autonomous District Council (JHADC) and Khasi Hills Autonomous District Council (KHADC) is going to expire on 16.02.14 and it proposed that election programme is to be notified on 5.02.14 for holding election on 24.02.14.
12. In the above circumstances keeping in mind the spirit contained in Article-243 (O) and Article-243 ZG, and spirit of Article- 329 (a) of the Constitution of India, we are not inclined to interfere with the delimitation of the constituencies regarding which impugned Rules have been passed by the Jaintia Hills Autonomous District Council (JHADC) and Khasi Hills Autonomous District Council (KHADC) to which Governor of Meghalaya has given the assent as required under Paragraph 2(7) of Sixth Schedule of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, all these four writ petitions are summarily dismissed.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.R. Sen) (Prafulla C Pant)
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
3 February 2014
rd 3rd February 2014
V. Lyndem