AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
By way of this writ petition, the petitioner, asserting himself to be elected Mulor (Garo Headman) of Ryngku Bazar Village, P.O. Mawsynram,
East Khasi Hills District, seeks to question the proviso to Rule 5 of the Khasi Hills Autonomous District (Appointment and Succession of Chiefs
and Headmen) Rules, 2015 [''the Rules of 2015''].
The said Rules of 2015 have been framed by the Khasi Hills Autonomous District Council [''KHADC''] in pursuance of paragraph 11 of the
Sixth Schedule to the Constitution of India, essentially in order to codify the administrative rights of Chiefs and Headmen of villages or elakas. Rule
5 thereof lays down the qualifications and functions of Rangbah Shnong/Sordar Shnong/Headman; and sub-clause (1) of Rule 5 with the proviso
referred to in this matter reads as under:-
Qualifications and Functions of a Rangbah Shnong/Sordar Shnong/Headman:-
1) A Rangbah Shnong/Sordar Shnong/Headman shall be elected as per the Act and shall also fulfill the following qualifications:-
a) He is a citizen of India and belongs to the Khasi community.
b) He observes and is well conversant with the Khasi customary laws, practices and usages prevailing in the village.
c) He is a male adult of good moral character who commands social respect in a village.
d) He is a permanent resident for not less than 10 (ten) years in a particular village for which he desires to be elected as Rangbah Shnong/Sordar
Shnong/Headman.
e) He is able to read and write Khasi language.
Provided that in any village inhabited entirely by Garo/non-Khasi community, the Chief and Dorbar may by order appoint a Mulor as Nongpyniaid
shnong to look after such village, who is directly under the control and direction of the Chief and Dorbar.
The grievance sought to be suggested in this petition is that the expression ''Mulor'' has not been defined in the Rules of 2015 and it ought to be
defined as a duly elected resident of the village concerned.
Upon taking up this matter for consideration, we have expressed reservations as regards the prayer made in this petition for the reasons that
such a prayer relates to the legislative function of the KHADC and it is difficult to find if the expressions used in the said proviso to Rule 5 (1) of
the Rules of 2015 are violative of any constitutional provision or are beyond the legislative competence of KHADC.
During the course of submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has also pointed out that earlier, the question as regards position and
capacity of the headman of a Garo village located within the territorial jurisdiction of the Khasi and Jaintia Hills Autonomous District Councils was
raised in WP(C) (SH) No.159 of 2012 wherein, by the order dated 06.07.2012, the then jurisdictional High Court left it open for the petitioner to
approach the concerned authorities for necessary amendment in the United Khasi Jaintia Autonomous District Council (Appointment and
Succession of Chiefs and Headmen) Act, 1959.
While examining the order dated 06.07.2012, it is also noticed that an original suit for declaration of right and title of the Mulors (headmen of
Garo villages) had already been filed and in response to our query, it is an admitted position that the said suit is still pending in the Court of the
Presiding Officer, Subordinate District Council Court, Shillong.
In the given set of circumstances and upon our expressing reservations in entertaining this petition on the prayer so made, learned counsel for the
petitioner seeks permission to withdraw with liberty to take recourse to appropriate remedies in accordance with law, including making of
representation to the KHADC as also making other submissions in the pending suit.
Learned counsel for the respondents have no objection in the prayer so made while reserving their rights to make appropriate submissions in
opposition to the proceedings sought to be taken up by the petitioner.
Having regard to the submissions made, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw and this writ petition stands dismissed as withdrawn with liberty
as prayed.
In the interest of justice, we make it clear that none of the observations in this order shall have any bearing on the merit consideration of the
matter by the Courts/authorities concerned.