Lunthang Haokip vs State Of Manipur

!

[1] Heard Shri N. Ibotombi, learned Senior Advocate and Shri R.S. Reisang, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners while Shri N.

Kumarjit Singh, learned Advocate General appearing for the State respondents and Shri Ch. Momon Singh, learned Advocate appearing for the State Election Commission.

[2] Since the above writ petitions have arisen out of a similar set of facts, the same are being disposed by this common judgment and order.

WP(C) No. 613 of 2020:

[3.1] The validity and correctness of the letter dated 13-11-2020 written by the respondent No.3 to the respondent No.5 in so far as it relates to para

No. A(ii) and the decision of the Cabinet taken on 10-11- 2020 in so far as it relates to Agenda No.1 are under challenge in this writ petition and in addition thereto, it has been prayed by the petitioners to direct the respondents to extend the term of office of all the members of the Autonomous District Councils with effect from 01- 12-2020 or till the completion of the election proposed to be held for electing new members of the said District Councils.

[3.2] According to the petitioners, they are the elected members of the six District Councils- (a) Autonomous District Council, Kangpokpi;

(b) Autonomous District Council, Senapati; (c) Autonomous District Council, Tamenglong; (d) Autonomous District Council, Chandel; (e) Autonomous District Council, Churachandpur and (f) Autonomous District Council, Ukhrul.

[3.3] The Manipur (Hill Areas) District Councils Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act, 1971”) came to be enacted by the Parliament for constitution of District Councils in the Hill areas of Manipur and for matters connected therewith, with regard to the power and functions thereof and incidental thereto. The Act of 1971 came to be amended from time to time. In exercise of the power conferred by the provision of Section 3 of the Act, 1971, the State of Manipur vide its notification dated 14-02-1972 constituted the said District Councils which came to be renamed as the Chandel, Churachandpur, Tamenglong, Ukhrul, Sadar Hills/ Kangpokpi and Senapati Autonomous District Councils respectively (hereinafter referred to as “the District Councils”).

[3.4] In exercise of the power conferred by sub-section 1 of Section 4 of the Act, 1971 as amended from time to time and on the basis of the election results being declared by the State Election Commission, the Governor of Manipur notified a list of elected members of the District Councils vide Notification dated 17-06-2015. The petitioners were elected as the members of their respective District Councils in the said election held in the year,

2015.

[3.5] Section 13(1) of the Act, 1971 provides that the term of office of the members of the District Councils shall be five years which will commence from the date of notification of the election or nomination. The proviso to Section 13(1) states that the State Government may, when satisfied that it is necessary in order to avoid administrative difficulty, extend the term of office of all the members by such period not exceeding one year as it thinks fit.

[3.6] As the term of office of the elected members was to expire on 31-05-2020 and as no election was likely to be held, the Governor of Manipur issued an order dated 19-03-2020 extending the term of the District Councils for a period of six months in order to avoid administrative difficulty and also to hold the election in the meantime. The said extension of term of the District Councils was made on the recommendation of the Hill Areas Committee, Manipur Legislative Assembly.

[3.7] The respondent No.5 vide its letter dated 22-08-2020 requested the respondent No.1 to issue notification for the publication of Draft Electoral Rolls of the District Council Constituencies so as to enable it to hold the election in time but no action was taken from the side of the State Government to hold the District Council’s Election in time in spite of the said letter being addressed to the State Government by it. In the meantime, Dr. Yaronsho Ngalung, Chairman of the Autonomous District Council, Ukhrul vide his letter dated 17-08-2020 requested the Hon’ble Chief Minister, Manipur to extend the term of the District Councils after the expiry of the extended period on the ground that it might not be conducive to hold the election in view of the Covid- 19 Pandemic and that all the District Councils/ Schools were being used as the quarantine centre.

[3.8] A meeting of the Hill Areas Committee, Manipur Legislative Assembly was held on 08-10-2020 to consider the issue relating to the election of the District Councils wherein it took a resolution for holding the election in time and recommended for holding the election. No decision was taken in the said meeting either to extend the term of the District Councils or not to extend it. As desired by the State Government, the respondent No.5 vide its letter dated 12-10-2020 informed the respondent No.1 that the duration required for conducting the District Councils election would be, at least, 75 days.

[3.9] Thereafter, the respondent No.1 after obtaining the opinion of the Law Department, prepared a Memorandum for Cabinet dated 22- 10-2020 wherein it has wrongly been mentioned that the Hill Areas Committee has recommended for non-extension of the term beyond 30-11-2020. The Law Department has opined that there is no provision for dissolving the District Councils in the Act, 1971 and that the District Councils can be superseded by invoking Section 47 of the Act, 1971.

[3.10] The State Cabinet in its meeting held on 10-11-2020 took a decision in Agenda No.1 approving para No. 6(A) of the Memo for Cabinet and thereafter, the Joint Secretary (Tribal Affairs & Hills), Government of Manipur informed the State Election Commission to take up necessary action in compliance with the State Cabinet decision. Being aggrieved by the said decision dated 10-11-2020 and the letter dated 13-11-2020, the instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner on the inter-alia grounds that since the State Government has been conferred power to extend the term of the District Councils for a period not exceeding one year, the same cannot be taken lightly and ignored. The elected and nominated members of the District Councils are not responsible for not holding the election in time. The election could not be held in time because of the inaction on the part of the State Government. If the terms of the members of the District Councils are not extended, it will create administrative difficulty for which the people at large shall become the victim. As the term of the District Councils are not extended, the development works in all the District Councils could not be done and that apart, many serious consequences will be there in the education sector. If the District Councils are to be superseded by invoking the provisions of Section 47, the ingredients mentioned therein will have to be there and in absence thereof, no District Councils could be superseded.

The State Government cannot play hot and cold at the same time in as much as in the earlier occasion, the State Government vide its order dated 05- 05-2015 had extended the term of the members of the District Council till the completion of the election process.

[4] On 27-11-2020 when the writ petition came up for consideration, this Court while issuing notice to the respondents, passed an interim order directing that the term of the District Councils in respect of the hill areas be extended till 04-12-2020, for which the State Government should issue necessary order.

[5.1] An affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 and 3 stating that the Department of Tribal Affairs and Hills, on receipt of the communication dated 22-08-2020 from the State Election Commission, initiated the process of conduct of District Council’s election as per schedule. In view of the Covid-19 Pandemic, the comment of the State Executive Committee constituted under the National Disaster Management Act, 2005 was required as to whether the election could be conducted. In order to conduct the election on schedule, the State Government must issue notification for publication of the Draft Electoral Rolls on 14-09-2020. On 07-09-2020, the Department of Tribal Affairs and Hills initiated the process of placing the matter before the State Cabinet for deliberation. Accordingly, the Administrative Department on 10-09-2020 referred the matter again to the State Disaster Management Authority for its views which recommended the matter for placing before the State Cabinet. In terms of Article 371(C) of the Constitution of India, the Manipur Legislative Assembly, (Hills Areas Committee) Order, 1972 was issued whereby the functions of the Hill Areas Committee were enumerated. Pursuant to the said functions as enumerated therein, a meeting of the Hill Areas Committee was held on 08-10-2020 wherein one of the Agenda was the conduct of the District Council’s election in the State. The Hill Areas Committee adopted a resolution on 16-01-2020 to the effect that the District Council’s election could be held in November, 2020 and after deliberation, it was resolved that the District Council election should be held on time. However, no resolution for extension of the term of the District Council beyond 30-11-2020 was taken. As recommended by the Hill Areas Committee vide its resolution dated 08-10-2020, the State Cabinet in its meeting held on 10-11-2020 approved the proposal at para 6(A) to the effect that the State Government may inform the State Election Commission to publish the draft electoral roll at an appropriate time so that the process of District election is completed at the earliest and that within the intervening period of completing the election process, the seats of the District Council member shall be deemed to be vacant after 30-11-2020. The petitioners have no locus standi to file the writ petition. The Government order dated 05-05-2015 did not extend the term and moreover, Section 51 did not authorize to issue it. Under Section 13 (1) of Act, 1971, the extension of the term of the District is solely under the discretion of the state Government. The holding of election is under the purview of the State Government through the State Election Commission. The term of the District Councils expired on 30- 11-2020, for which Secretariat: Tribal affairs and Hills Department, Government of Manipur issued the order dated 30-11-2020 appointing the Deputy Commissioners to exercise all powers after the supersession of the District Councils in terms of Section 47 of the Act, 1971. The petitioners have no accrued right to claim for extension of the term of the District Councils. The decision taken by the Cabinet is a policy decision of the State and as such, the same cannot be challenged, unless it is ultravires or contrary to law.

[5.2] In the rejoinder, it has been stated by the petitioners that if the State Government was keen to hold the election, it could have held the election in

time. The bye-election is respect of two Legislative Assembly constituencies was held on 07-11-2020 and the result thereof was declared on 11-11-

2020. The averment that there is no ground for extension of the term beyond 30-11-2020 is incorrect. The administrative Department, while preparing the memorandum for cabinet dated 22-10-2020, has clearly mentioned that if the term is not extended after 30-11-2020, there would be an administrative failure on the part of the Government. Even the Law Department has proposed for extension of the term for at least three months. The decision taken by the State Government not to extend the term, is because of an agreement dated 04-11-2020 entered into between the ATSUM and the State Government. The State Government has violated this Court’s order dated 27-11-2020 and the act of the State Government amounts to willful and deliberate violation of the interim order passed by this Court and as such, suo moto contempt proceeding be initiated against the respondent No.1.

WP(C) No. 645 of 2020:

[6.1] The instant writ petition came to be filed questioning the validity and correctness of the order dated 30-11-2020 issued by the TA & Hills Department, Government of Manipur and in addition thereto, it has been prayed to direct the respondent No.1 to allow the petitioners to serve as the Caretaker Chairman of the concerned District Councils in the light of the earlier precedent vide order dated 05-05-2015 issued by the TA & Hills Department, Government of Manipur.

[6.2] According to the petitioners, the petitioner No.1 is the elected Chairman of the Autonomous District Council, Ukhrul while the petitioner No.2 is the elected Chairman of the Autonomous District Council, Tamenglong.

[6.3] Since the extended term of the District Councils was to expire on 30-11-2020, the petitioner No.1 submitted a representation dated 23-11-2020 to the Additional Chief Secretary, TA & Hills, Manipur with a request to allow him to continue as the Caretaker Chairman till the completion of the election process. Without it being considered by the State respondents, the Secretariat: TA & Hills Department, Government of Manipur issued the order dated 30-11- 2020 superseding the District Councils as their term was to expire on 30-11-2020 in exercise of the power conferred by Section 47

(i) (d) and 2 (b) of the Act, 1971.

[6.4] Being aggrieved by the said order dated 30-11-2020, the instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner on the inter-alia grounds that the State Government has misinterpreted the provisions of Section 47 (i)(d) and Section 2(b) without application of mind. The power and functions of the District Councils cannot be superseded in any circumstance except under the circumstances and conditions laid down in Section 47 and its proviso.

[6.5] One of the grounds on which the District Council can be superseded, is the opinion of the Deputy Commissioner in relation to the circumstances as mentioned in Section 47. Before making an order of supersession under clause (a), (b) and (c), reasonable opportunity of being heard ought to be given to the elected members of the District Councils. In all democratic institutions either at the grass-root level or in the Legislative Assembly, there is a precedent set during the conduct of the election. Similar is the case with the District Councils as is evident from the order dated 05-05-2015 issued by the TA & Hills Department, Government of Manipur allowing the Chairman of the District Councils to serve as the Caretaker Chairman. As per the convention and practice, the District Councils normally get dissolved as and when the process and preparation of the election is complete. Instead of doing the needful to complete the process of preparation and holding the election, the State Government appears to have shown more interest to vacate the existing seats of the District Councils.

[7] An affidavit has been filed by the respondent No.2 but since the averments made therein are similar to that of the averments made in the affidavit filed in WP(C) No.613 of 2020, the same are not repeated here for the sake of brevity. In addition thereto, it has been stated that the Hill Areas Committee, in its meeting held on 08-10- 2020, resolved that the election be held in time but it did not take any resolution that the term of the District Councils be extended beyond 30-11-2020. The term of the District Councils cannot be extended without the recommendation of the Hill Areas Committee. In response to its letter dated 13-11-2020, the State Election Commission vide its letter dated 14-12-2020 intimated the situation regarding the preparation and holding of election by appointing 18-02-2021 as the date for draft publication and its notification. The State Government vide its letter dated 17-12-2020 granted the approval and the State Election Commission was requested to furnish schedule date for the election. In exercise of power conferred by Section 47 of the Act, 1971, the District Councils have been suspended. Since the Hill Areas Committee is not a party in the writ petition, no relief can be granted in the writ petition. The State Government has taken up the necessary steps for holding the election.

WP (C) No. 647 of 2020:

[8.1] The writ petition being WP(C) No. 613 of 2020 was listed before the Hon'ble Court on 27-11-2020 and this Court, after hearing the learned Advocate General, was pleased to pass an interim order to the effect that in order to avoid the administrative failure/ administrative difficulty, the term of the District Councils in respect of the said hill areas be extended till the next date and that necessary order be passed by the State Government, in that regard, by 30-11-2020. The Petitioners through their Counsel, communicated the said order dated 27-11-2020 passed by this Court to the respondents vide letter dated 30-11-2020, which the Respondents are aware of.

[8.2] Instead of issuing the order extending the term of the District Councils, the Addl. Chief Secretary (TA & Hills), Government of Manipur issued an order dated 30-11-2020 superseding the District Councils and appointing their respective Deputy Commissioners to exercise all powers and duties conferred and imposed upon the District Councils under the Act, 1971 or any other law for the time being in force. The State Government enclosed a copy of the same while filing the counter affidavit in respect of W.P (C) No. 613 of 2020.

[8.3] Being aggrieved by the order dated 30-11-2020, the instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioners and according to them, in spite of knowing fully the existence of the order dated 27-11-2020 passed by this Court in WP(C) No.613 of 2020, the respondent No.I, in complete violation of the order dated 27-11-2020, issued the order dated 30-11-2020 and as such, a Suo Moto contempt proceeding be initiated against the respondent

No. 1 and who shall be punished in accordance with law for willful and deliberate violation of this Court's order dated 27-11-2020. It is pertinent to mention herein that the respondent No. 1 has not filed any writ appeal against the order dated 27-11-2020 or any application for modification/ alteration of the order dated 27-11-2020 and as such, the respondent No.1 is duty bound to comply with the order passed by this Court.

[8.4] If a District Council is to be superseded by invoking Section 47 of the Act, 1971, it can be done only when the ingredients mentioned therein are available and in the absence of the ingredients, no District Council could be superseded. In the present case, Section 47 of the Act, 1971 has no application at all.

[9] An affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent No.1 but since the averments made therein are similar to that of the averments made in the affidavits filed in WP(C) No.613 of 2020 and WP(C) No.645 of 2020, the same are not repeated here for the sake of brevity.

[10] From the above pleadings, the following main issues have arisen for consideration by this Court:

(a) Whether the policy decision taken by the State Cabinet on 10-11-2020 and the letter dated 13-11-2020 written pursuant thereto by the Joint Secretary (TA & Hills), Government of Manipur to the State Election Commission to take necessary action, are legally valid ?

(b) Whether, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present cases, the State Government is justified in exercising its power conferred by Section 47 of the Act, 1971 to supersede the District Councils ?

[11] As regards the first issue, it has been submitted by Shri N. Ibotombi, Senior Advocate that the decision taken by the State Cabinet in its meeting held on 10-11-2020 approving para No. 6(A) of the Memorandum for Cabinet and the letter dated 13-11-2020 written by the Joint Secretary (Tribal Affairs & Hills), Government of Manipur informing the State Election Commission to take up necessary action accordingly, are bad in law for the reason that the term of the District Councils was not extended, even though the State Government is conferred wide power to extend it for a period not exceeding one year. It has further been submitted by him that the elected and nominated members of the District Councils are not responsible for not-holding the election in time and the election could not be held in time because of the inaction on the part of the State Government. If the terms of the District Councils are not extended, it will create administrative difficulty, because of which the people at large shall become the victim thereof and the development works in all the District Councils will be put to a standstill resulting in serious consequences in the education sector. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the decisions rendered by the Bombay High Court in Vave Potge Shenvai Vividh Vikas Karyakari Society Ltd. Vs.

State of Maharastra & ors., (1999) 1 MHLJ 95 and Calcutta High Court in P.R Ganeshan Vs. Lt. Governor, Andaman Nicobar Islands, (1995) AIHC

2994. Since the submissions of Shri R.S Raisang, Senior Advocate are similar to that of Shri N. Ibotombi, Senior Advocate, the same are not repeated here for the sake of brevity. However, it has been contended by him that the invoking of the provisions of Section 47 is highly arbitrary which has defeated the purpose and intention of the Act, 1971. If the State Government had any administrative difficulty, it could have invoked the provisions of Section 13 of the Act, 1971. The District Councils shall be dissolved only after the election process is completed. The District Councils have been superseded at the whims and fancies without any adequate justification. Reliance has been placed by him in the decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bhavnagar University Vs. Palitana Sugar Mill (P) Ltd & ors., (2003) 2 SCC 111; Kishansing Tomar Vs. Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad & ors., (2006) 8 SCC 352 and State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Mohd. Hussain & ors., (2014) 1 SCC 258. A decision rendered by the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the Municipal Committee, Kharar District, Ambala & ors. Vs. State of Punjab & ors., AIR 1967 P & H 430 has also been relied upon by him. On the other hand, it has been submitted by Shri N. Kumarjit Singh, the learned Advocate General that since the decision taken by the State Government was a policy decision, it shall not be interfered with by this Court. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of UP Vs. Choudhury Ran Beer Singh, (2008) 5 SCC 550; Dilip Kumar Garg & anr. Vs. State of UP & ors., (2009) 4 SCC 763; Parisons Agrotech (P) Ltd Vs. Union of India & ors., (2015) 9 SCC 657 and (Essar Steel Ltd. Vs Union of India & ors., (2016) 11 SCC 1. Shri Ch. Momon Singh, learned Advocate appearing for the State Election Commission has submitted that he has nothing to say on the merit of the case but in so far as the holding of election is concerned, the preparation of the draft electoral roll is almost complete and it will be published very shortly in the near future.

[12] The issue whether the policy decision of the Government can be interfered with by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is no longer res integra. In Choudhury Ran Beer Singh (supra), it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that in matter of policy decision or exercise of discretion by the Government so long as the infringement of fundamental right is not shown, the Court will have no occasion to interfere and the Court will not and should not substitute its own judgment for the judgment of the executive in such matters. In Paisons Agrotech (P) Ltd. (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held:

“14. No doubt, the writ court has adequate power of judicial review in respect of such decisions. However, once it is found that there is sufficient material for taking a particular policy decision, bringing it within the four corners of Article 14 of the Constitution, power of judicial review would not extend to determine the correctness of such a policy decision or to indulge into the exercise of finding out whether there could be more appropriate or better alternatives. Once we find that parameters of Article 14 are satisfied; there was due application of mind in arriving at the decision which is backed by cogent material; the decision is not arbitrary or irrational and; it is taken in public interest, the Court has no respect such a decision of the executive as the policy making is the domain of the executive and the decision in question has passed the test of judicial review.”

Similar is the case with Essar Steel Ltd. (supra) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held:

“49. A perusal of the abovementioned judgments of this Court would show that this Court should exercise great caution and restraint when confronted with matters related to the policy regarding commercial matters of the country. Executive policies are usually enacted after much deliberation by the Government. Therefore, it would not be appropriate for this Court to question the wisdom of the same, unless it is demonstrated by the aggrieved persons that the said policy has been enacted in an arbitrary, unreasonable or mala fide manner, or that it offends that provisions of the Constitution of India.”

In Dilip Kumar Garg (supra) when the validity of Rule 5(ii) of the Rules, 2004 was questioned on the ground of violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held :

“15. In our opinion Article 14 should not be stretched too far, otherwise it will make the functioning of the administration impossible. The administrative authorities are in the best position to decide the requisite qualifications for promotion from Junior Engineer to Assistant Engineer, and it is not for this Court to sit over their decision like a court of appeal. The administrative authorities have experience in administration, and the Court must respect this, and should not interfere readily with administrative decisions. (See Union of India v. Pushpa Rani and Official Liquidator v. Dayanand.)

The decision to treat all Junior Engineers, whether degree-holders or diploma-holders, as equals for the purpose of promotion is a policy decision, and it is well settled that this Court should not ordinarily interfere in policy decisions unless there is clear violation of some constitutional provision or the statute. We find no such violation in this case.

In Tata Cellular v. Union of India it has been held that there should be judicial restraint in administrative decision. This principle will apply all the more to a rule under Article 309 of the Constitution.”

From the decisions relied upon by the learned Advocate General appearing for the State respondents, it is absolutely clear that the interference by the Court in matters relating to policy decision is very limited but an exception has always been carved out in the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court to the effect that such a policy decision can be interfered with by the Court, if it is unfair, unreasonable, discriminatory and malafide being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and is not taken in public interest.

[13] It is not in dispute that the decision taken by the State Government was a policy decision. The corollary issue is as to whether the same has been taken in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India so that it can be interfered with by this Court. The contention of the counsels appearing for the petitioners is that since the election was not held in time, the State Government ought to have extended the terms of the District Councils in exercise of power conferred under Section 13 of the Act, 1971 which reads as under:

“13(1) Save as otherwise provided in this section, the term of office of a member shall be five years and shall commence from the date of the notification of his election or nomination under Section 12 or from the date on which the vacancy in which he is elected or nominated has occurred, whichever date is later:

Provided that the Administrator may, when satisfied that it is necessary in order to avoid administrative difficulty, extend the term of office of all the members by such period not exceeding one year as he thinks fit.”

Section 13 (1) provides that the term of the District Councils shall five years which will commence from the date of the notification of his election or nomination. The proviso thereto, states that the Administrator may extend the term by such period not exceeding one year. Such extension is permissible, only when the Administrator is satisfied that it is necessary in order to avoid administrative difficulty. It is a discretionary power conferred upon the Administrator who shall exercise it in accordance with certain principles and that too, on the basis of the materials which make it necessary for extension of the term. The members of the District Councils cannot claim the extension of the term as of right. Relying upon the decision of the Calcutta High Court in P.R Ganeshan (Supra), it has been contended by Shri N. Ibotombi that the petitioners are entitled to continue as the Chairman of the District Councils. The facts of that case are not exactly the same as that of the present cases but there are certain similarities, in the sense that the prayer made therein is to extend the term of the Municipal Board. In P.R Ganeshan, the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court held that the provisions of Section 13(5) of the Regulation, 1957 are mandatory and under the same, the Chairman has a right to continue till new Chairman assumes office. In other words, reading with Section 43 thereof, the Hon’ble High Court held that under the provisions of Section 13(5), the Chairman has a right to continue even after expiry of his tenure till a new Chairman is elected and he assumes office. The Hon’ble High Court has given the above interpretation for the reason that the word “shall” appears to have been used in the provisions of Section 13 (5) of the Regulation, 1957. In Vave Potge Shenvai Vividh Vikas Karyakari Society Ltd. (supra), while holding that it was impermissible for the State Government to extend the term in public interest which reason is not mentioned in the section, the Bombay High Court observed that looking to the provisions of the Section 14(3) and the proviso holding the election at the proper time, cannot be taken very lightly and ignored and that is why the proviso makes it clear that only when the Committee members cannot be faulted with for not holding the elections, the State Government may extend the period. This Court is not bound by the decisions rendered by other High Courts in the country except the persuasive value. This Court has some reservations on the view taken by the Calcutta High Court for the reason that such a word “shall” is not used in Section 13(1) of the Act, 1971. In the present cases, the State Government cannot take a decision to extend the term of the District Councils without a recommendation being made by the Hill Areas Committee and moreover, the decision was taken by the Cabinet after taking into account the proposals furnished by the Law Department. Be that as it may, the first issue appears to have become infructuous after the order dated 30-11-2020 having been issued by the State Government superseding the District Councils and there is no point of considering it. However, the issue is kept open which can be decided in an appropriate case in future.

[14] So far as the second issue is concerned, the answer thereof will depend upon the interpretation of the provisions of Section 47 of the Act, 1971 which reads as under:

“Section 47. (Supersession of District Council)-(1) If, on receipt of a report from the Deputy Commissioner or otherwise, the Administrator is of opinion that-

(a) any District Council is not competent to perform, or persistently makes default in the performance of the duties imposed on it by or under this Act or any other law; or

(b) any District Council exceeds or abuses its powers; or

(c) the financial position and credit position of any District Council is seriously threatened; or

(d) a situation has arisen in which the administration of any District Council cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of this Act, the Administrator may, by an order published, together with a statement of reasons therefore, in the Official Gazette, supersede such Council for such period, not exceeding one year, as may be specified in the order;

Provided that before making an order of supersession as aforesaid under clause (a) or clause

(b) or clause (c), reasonable opportunity shall be given to such Council to show cause why such order of supersession should not be made:

Provided further that the period of supersession may be extended for any further period or periods not exceeding six months at a time in consultation with the Hill Areas Committee.

(2) When any District Council is superseded by an order under sub-section (1), -

(e) all the members of the Council (including the Chairman and Vice-Chairman thereof) shall, on such date as may be specified in the order, vacate their offices as such members without prejudice to their eligibility for election or nomination under clause (d);

(f) during the period of supersession of the Council, all powers and duties conferred and imposed upon the Council by or under this Act or any other law shall be exercised and performed by such officer or authority as the Administrator may appoint on this behalf;

(g) all property vested in the Council shall, until it is reconstituted, vest in the Central Government;

(h) before the expiry of the period of supersession, election or nomination, as the case may be, of members to the Council shall be held or made for the purpose of reconstituting the Council.”

[15] Section 47 provides for the supersession of the District Councils, the power of which is conferred upon the Administrator. The power of supersession may be exercised by the Administrator under any of the circumstances mentioned in clause (a) or (b) or (c) or (d) of Section 47(1).

While issuing the order of supersession either under clause (a) or (b) or (c), a reasonable opportunity shall be given to such District Council to show cause why such order of supersession should not be made as provided under the first proviso thereto. In case the order of supersession is issued under clause (d) superseding a District Council, a reasonable opportunity need not be given to it but it shall be accompanied by a statement of reasons. In the present case, the election of the District Councils was held in the year, 2015 and the list of elected members of the District Councils was notified vide Notification dated 17-06-2015 showing the petitioners being elected as the members of their respective District Councils. As the term of the District Councils was five years, it was to expire on 31- 05-2020 but since the election thereof was not likely to be held, the Governor of Manipur issued an order dated 19-03-2020 extending the term of the District Councils for a period of six months to avoid administrative difficulty and also to hold the election in the meantime. The said extension of the term of the District Councils, Manipur was made on the recommendation of the Hill Areas Committee, Manipur Legislative Assembly. On 22-08-2020, the respondent No.5 requested the respondent No.1 to issue notification for the publication of Draft Electoral Rolls of the District Council Constituencies so as to enable it to hold the election in time. No action appears to have been taken by the State Government to hold the District Councils Election. Dr. Yaronsho Ngalung, Chairman of the District Council, Ukhrul vide his letter dated 17- 08-2020 requested the Hon’ble Chief Minister, Manipur to extend the term of the District Councils after the expiry of the extended period on the ground that it might not be conducive to hold the election in view of the Covid-19 Pandemic and that all the District Councils/ Schools were being used as the quarantine centre and many people were in the quarantine centre. A meeting of the Hill Areas Committee, Manipur Legislative Assembly was held on 08-10-2020 to consider the issue relating to the election of the District Councils wherein it took a resolution for holding the election in time and recommended for holding the election. However, no decision was taken in the said meeting either to extend the term of the District Councils or not to extend it. The respondent No.5 vide its letter dated 12-10-2020 informed the respondent No.1 that the duration required for conducting the District Councils Election would be, at least, 75 days. Thereafter, the respondent No.1 after obtaining opinion of the Law Department that there is no provision for dissolving the District Councils in the Act, 1971 and that the District Councils can be superseded by invoking Section 47 of the Act, 1971, prepared a Memorandum for Cabinet dated 22-10- 2020. The proposal of the Law Department reads as under;

“6. In view of the above facts the following is proposed: A. Proposal One:

i. The State Government may inform the State Election Commission to publish the draft electoral roll at such an appointed time the elections to the ADC’s are completed at the earliest.

ii. That, within the intervening period of completing the election process, the existing seats of the ADC members shall be deemed to be vacant after 30th November, 2020.

B. Proposal Two:

i. The State Government may inform the State Election Commission to publish the draft electoral roll at such an appointed time so that the elections to the ADC’s are completed at the earliest.

ii. The State Government may refer to the Hill Areas Committee to extend the term of the existing ADC’s till the completion of the election process.”

The State Cabinet in its meeting held on 10-11-2020 took a decision approving para No.6(A) of the Memo for Cabinet and thereafter, the Joint Secretary (Tribal Affairs & Hills), Government of Manipur informed the State Election Commission to take up necessary action in compliance with the State Cabinet decision. The validity and correctness of the decision dated 10-11-2020 and letter dated 13-11-2020 is a subject matter in issue which has been decided in the preceding paragraphs.

[16] On perusal of the order dated 30-11-2020 impugned herein, it is seen that the only reason given therein for supersession is that the term of the District Councils would expire on the same day and the administration of the District Councils cannot be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Act, 1971. Shri R.S Raising, the learned Senior Advocate relying upon the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kishansing Tomar (supra), contended that the election ought to have been held in time so that the question of supersession would not have arisen and it could have been avoided. In Kishansing Tomar, it has been held that the power of the State Election Commission in respect of conduct of elections is no less than that of the Election Commission of India in their respective domains. The State Election Commission shall try to complete the election before the expiration of the term and shall not yield to situations that may be created by vested interests to postpone the elections from being held within the stipulated time. Any revision of electoral rolls shall be carried out in time and if it cannot be carried out within a reasonable time, the election has to be conducted on the basis of the then existing electoral rolls. In the present case, the reasons as to why the election was not held by the State Election Commission in time, are not placed on record because no counter has been filed by it. But during the course of hearing, when a question was put to the counsel appearing for the State Election Commission in this regard by this Court, he answered it by stating that the State Election Commission did not get the direction from the State Government to prepare and publish the draft electoral rolls. This does not seem to be the correct approach. It is for the State Election Commission to hold the election in time. In other words, it is incumbent upon the State Election Commission to hold the election before expiration of the term of the District Councils. In view of the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kishansing Tomar (supra), the State Election Commission need not wait for the revision of the electoral rolls, if the term is likely to be over and the election is to be held on the basis of the existing electoral rolls. There appears to be certain lapses on the part of the State Election Commission as regards the non-holding of election in time. In Municipal Committee, Kharar District, Ambala (supra), it has been held by the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court that the mere copying of the words of the section into the notification amounts only to notifying the conclusions of the Government and is no substitute whatever for the statutory requirement of notifying the reasons leading the Government to take the action in question. The State Government knew well that the term of the District Councils was to expire on 31-05-2020 but it had been extended vide order dated 19-03- 2020 for a period of six months to avoid administrative difficulty and to hold the election in the meantime. The appropriate actions ought to have been taken to ensure that the election was held in time and in other words, the election of the District Councils ought to have been held by 30-11-2020 but the State Government and the State Election Commission had failed to do that. The reasons for supersession are not given in the impugned order except copying the words of the Section 13, namely, the administration of the District Councils cannot be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Act, 1971. In fact, this Court is not bound by the decision of any of the High Courts including the Punjab & Haryana High Court except their persuasive value. But since the observation of the Punjab & Haryana High Court made in Municipal Committee, Kharar District, Ambala appears to be correct, this Court endorses

it. The failure on the part of the State Government in holding the election in time cannot be said to be a reasonable ground for supersession of the District Councils and therefore, the impugned order dated 30-11-2020 is bad in law. On top of that, it may be noted that on 27-11-2020 when the writ petition being WP(C) No.613 of 2020 came up for consideration, this Court passed an interim order directing that the term of the District Councils be extended till 04-12-2020 and that a necessary order should be issued accordingly. Instead of issuing any order extending the term till 04-12-2020, the impugned order was issued superseding the District Councils which is contrary to the interim order dated 27-11-2020 passed by this Court. In other words, the impugned order which has violated the interim order of this Court, is bad in law and it being unsustainable, is liable to be quashed and set

aside. No material has been placed on record by the State Government that the interim order dated 27-11-2020 had been quashed and set aside by any appellate forum.

[17] For the reasons stated hereinabove, the writ petition being WP(C) No.613 of 2020 stands disposed of with the observation made hereinabove while WP(C) No.645 of 2020 and WP(C) No.647 of 2020 are allowed and consequently, the impugned order dated 30-11-2020 is quashed and set aside with the following directions:

(a) The State Government and in particular, the Additional Chief Secretary (TA & Hills), Government of Manipur shall write a letter to the Hill Areas Committee, Manipur Legislative Assembly seeking its opinion as to whether the term of the District Councils shall be extended or not till the completion of the election and the said letter shall be written within a week from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and order;

(b) On receipt of such a letter from the Additional Chief Secretary (TA & Hills), Government of Manipur, the Hill Areas Committee, Manipur Legislative Assembly shall furnish its opinion within a week from the date of receipt of the letter;

(c) After the opinion of the Hill Areas Committee, Manipur Legislative Assembly being duly received, the State Government shall take a decision and issue an appropriate order immediately in terms thereof;

(d) Till such an order is issued by the State Government as mentioned in the direction (c) above, the interim order dated 27-11-2020 passed by this Court in WP(C) No.613 of 2020 shall continue;

(e) The State Election Commission, Lamphelpat, Manipur is directed to announce the date on which the election of the District Councils shall be held within a week from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and order.

There shall be no order as to costs.