IN THE (The High Court of , Nagaland ,Meghalaya, Manipur, Tripura, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh)

W.P(C)No.1656 of 2011

1. Mr. Alimei Rongmei Son of late Pousing Rongmei R/O Vill & PO- Fulertal , District-Cachar, Assam.

2. Mr. Ngur Sungthang, S/O Late Ngur Khop R/O Vill-Hmar Khawlien PO- Fulertal , District-Cachar, , Assam

3. Mr. Warles Suchiang S/O Siang Lamare R/O Vill-Pedlapumji District- Cachar, Assam.

4. Anania Shchiang S/O Andev Suchiang R/O Vill & P.O- Matinagar, District- Cachar, Assam.

5. Jerom Khawjal S/O J. Thangthuom R/O Vill- Lower Loban Khal District-Cachar, Assam.

6. Mr. R.Liena Chiru S/O Late Tungpa Chiru R/O Vill-Chiropunji District-Cachar, Assam.

7. Mr. L. Lungawi Hrangkhol S/O late Thanga Hrangkhol R/O vill-Labankhal District- Cachar, Assam.

8. Mr. Babu Rongmei S/O Late Gaiphun Rongmei R/O Vill-Ujan Tarapur District- Cachar, Assam.

9. Mr. Liena Vaiphei S/O late Sema Vaiphei R/O Vill-Chandi Khal District- Cachar, Assam.

10. Mr. Loya Hmar S/O Late Lalkar Hmar R/O Vill- Baroidisha District- Cachar, Assam.

11. Mr. Thang Nangul S/O Late Lalthangvul R.O vill & PO- Lover Powa District- , Assam.

12. Mr. Lalmohan Chorai S/O late Milon Chorai R/O Vill-Gopinathpur, District-Karimganj, Assam.

13. Mr. Zalian Thanga Mizo S/O Late Lalchandama Mizo R/O Vill-Karot Punji District- , Assam. ….Petitioners -Versus-

1. The State of Assam , Through the Commissioner & Secretary To the , Welfare of Plain Tribes and backward classes Department, , -6.

2. The Commissioner and Secretary, Planning and Development, Government Of Assam , Dispur, Guwahati-6.

3. The Joint Secretary, Welfare Plain Tribes and backward classes Department, Dispur, Guwahati-6.

4. The Deputy Secretary, Welfare Plain Tribes and backward Classes Department, Dispur, Guwahati-6.

5. The Director, Welfare Plain Tribes and backward Classes Department, Dispur, Guwahati-6.

6. The Deputy Commissioner, Cachar, Silchar , Assam .

7. The Additional Deputy Commissioner, Cachar, Assam. ….Respondents

8. Mr. Lalthomilien Neitham R/O Lakhipur Cachar , Assam .

9. Mr. Lientho Hmar R/O Lakhipur Cachar , Assam .

10. Mr. T. Sangkhum, R/O Lakhipur Cachar , Assam .

11. Mr.Shillongthang R/O Lakhipur Cachar , Assam .

12. Mr. V.L. Siema Saihriam R/ONoxaltilla, Cachar , Assam .

13. Mr.Wellington Khongwang, R/O Katakhal, Cachar , Assam .

14. Mr. Sebastine Pakyntein R/O Kachukhal, Borokhaja, Cachar, Assam.

15. Mr. Bison Khasia R/O Lala,

16. Mr. Taw Potham, R/O Mathurapur, Cachar , Assam

17. Mr. Jamumpow Kabui R.O Ward No.1, Hailakandi.

18. Mrs. Chandni Dahengmei R/O Uttarkreshnapur, PT-II Cachar, Assam.

19. Mr. Kachekleck Reami, R/O Meherpur, Cachar.

20. Smti Ubati Rian R/O Katlicherra, Hailakandi.

21. Smti Jonhy Halam, R/O Patharkandi, Karimganj.

22. Smti Bandana Riang, R/O Katlicherra, Hailakandi.

23. Mr. Simeon Durong, R/O Katigorah (Malidhar), Cachar,

24. Mr. Milon Chorai R/O Cachar , Assam ,

25. Mr. Lumpu Kuki, R/O Ngente, Kumarcherra, Cachar, Assam. …Proforma Respondents.

PRESENT

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K.MUSAHARY

For the petitioner : Mr.P. K.Roychoudhury, Advocate Mr. M.Sarma,Advocate Mr. Aslam Khan, Advocate Mr. N.G.Kundu, Advocate

For the State respon- : Mr. B J Talukdar, Govt. Advocate Dents

For the Private Respon- : Mr. S.S.Dey, Ms.R.Rongmei, dents No.8 to 25 Ms. K.L.R.Yanthan, Advocates

Date of hearing : 26.05.2011

Date of judgment : 19.07.2011

JUDGMENT AND ORDER(CAV)

There are some indigenous Hills Tribes known as Hmar, Kuki, Mizo,

Khasia, Riang, Naga, Paite, Simte, Vaiphei, Gangte, Chakma, Karbi, Hrangkhol and Chiru living in the districts of Cachar, Karimganj and Hailakandi of Barak

Velley in Assam , who are backward in all spheres. These people had been agitating for quite some time demanding redressal of their grievances which culminated into signing of a Memorandum of Settlement on 18.3.1996 between the

President of Cachar Hill People Federation and Deputy Secretary to the

Government of Assam, W.P.T.& B.C.Department in presence of Chief Minister of

Assam . The said Memorandum of Agreement primarily provides for constitution of a council known as (Hill Tribes) Development Council which would consist of 5(five) members elected by the electors of ‘tribal settlement jhum permission areas’ and two other members to be nominated by the Government to give representation to groups/communities which are not otherwise represented in the council. The terms of the council shall be five years and the Government of

Assam shall constitute an Interim Council by nomination which shall continue till the council is constituted by election.

2. The Government of Assam constituted the first Interim Barak

Valley (Hills Tribes) Development Council, Silchar (hereinafter in short referred to ‘Council’) with 15 non official members and two ex-officio members vide Notification dated 14.9.2006 which was re-constituted by including /or excluding some or all members from the council. The council was ultimately re-constituted with 23 members including 2 officials vide

Notification No.TAD/BC/491/07 dated 16.2.2011 issued by the

Commissioner & secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Welfare of Plain Tribes &

Backward Classes Department, Dispur.

3. In the contemporary period Government of Assam at different points of time signed several Memoranda of Agreement with agitating leadership of different tribal communities in the of

Assam like Bodo, Mishing, Tiwa (Lalung), Rabha, Deuri, Sonawal Kachari,

Tengal Kachari, Sarania Kachari etc. for providing administrative autonomy and ensuring development of respective communities. In respect of Bodo,

Mishing, Rabha, Tiwa and Deuri, Government of Assam have already enacted legislations providing provisions for election of popular council, powers and functions of the Executive Council etc. The erstwhile Bodoland Autonomous

Council area has now been included in the 6th Schedule to the Constitution of

India which is now known as Bodoland Territorial Autonomous District (in short BTAD). The State Government is yet to enact legislation for election and constitution of Hills development council, in the Barak Valley .

4. In the first Interim Council constituted in 2006 with 17 members vide Notification dated 4.9.2006, all the petitioners were appointed/nominated as members of the Council. Petitioner No.2, Mr. Ngur Sungthang and

Petitioner No.3, Mr. Warles Suchiang were appointed as Chairman and Vice

Charirman respectively of the aforesaid 2006 Interim Council. As Chairman of the Interim Council of 2006, the petitioner No.2 wrote a letter dated

20.1.2011 to the Minister of W.P.T. & B.C., Assam informing him that one member has resigned from the council and requested him to expand the council by inclusion of 12 members. The names of members to be included were shown in the said letter. The names of the present petitioners were recommended for inclusion as members as they belong to various tribal communities of Barak Valley . After such recommendation Government of Assam issued Notification dated 27.1.2011 allowing restructuring and strengthening of council with 25 members including two Government officers covering the various tribes of Karimganj, Hailakandi and Cachar

Districts for providing maximum participation of communities within the framework of the Constitution of for social, economic, educational, cultural and ethnic advancement. In the said Notification the names of 25 members have not been mentioned /furnished. Pursuant to the Notification dated 21.1.2011 and on the basis of recommendation made by the Cabinet

Sub-Committee, the Government of Assam reconstituted the Council by appointing 23 members including two officials, vide Notification dated

16.2.2011. In the said Notification it is provided that the post of Chairman and

Vice Chairman of the Council would be elected by the members within 15 days. Two other members were appointed/ included in the said council vide

Government Order dated 25.2.2011 issued under No.TAD/BC/491/2007. Only three petitioners namely petitioners No.2,3 and 5 have been included as members in the newly reconstituted council and other petitioners No. 1, 4, 6,

7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 have been left out while reconstituting the council vide Notification dated 16.2.2011. The petitioners are aggrieved by non inclusion of the aforesaid members in the council and therefore they are seeking quashment of the impugned Notification dated 16.2.2011 (Annexure-

VI to the writ petition).

5. While issuing notice of motion on 31.3.2011, it was observed that learned State counsel was unable to obtain proper instruction within 31.3.2011 to throw light on the issue raised by the petitioners and as such an interim order was passed to the effect that till returnable date i.e. 25.4.2011 the impugned order dated 16.2.2011shall not be given effect to. The State

Respondents have not come forward for vacation/modification of the aforesaid interim order. However, the private respondents No.8 to 25 filed an application on 27.4.2011 for cancellation/vacation /suitable modification of the said Interim order dated 31.3.2011. The said application has been registered as Misc.Case No.1254 of 2011. No order has been passed in the aforesaid Misc. Application but as desired by the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition has been taken up for hearing and disposal. At the time of hearing the learned counsel for the private respondents submitted that the Misc.Application filed by the private respondents for cancellation/modification of the Interim Order be treated as an affidavit-in- opposition inasmuch as the necessary pleadings have been made therein. The

State-Respondents have not filed any response to the writ petition.

6. I have heard Mr. P K Roychoudhury, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. B J Talukdar, learned counsel for the State-Respondents and Mr. S.S.Dey, learned counsel for the private respondents No. 8 to 25. Mr.

Roychoudhury, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that re-constitution of the council without nominating petitioners No.1 and 4 to 13 is illegal, arbitrary and in clear violation of the Govt. objectives and guidelines inasmuch as all the indigenous tribes living in the Barak Valley have not been represented. There would have been fair representation of all the tribes if the persons who have been recommended by the then Chairman vide his letter dated 20.1.2011, were nominated as members of the council in place of the present private respondents. He further submits that the private respondents have been nominated as members with “vested interest” and the impugned order dated 16.2.2011 constituting the council is liable to be set aside inasmuch as the council was constituted in violation of the Government guidelines, direction and norms for constitution of the council. Moreover, according to him, the doctrine of pleasure in removing the petitioners from the membership of the council by way of constituting a new council vide impugned order dated 16.2.2011 is of no avail somuch so the doctrine of pleasure is not applicable to the present case as a major change has taken place in the application of doctrine of pleasure in India after judicial pronouncement of Supreme Court in B.P.Singhal –Vs- Union of India, reported in (2010) 6 SCC 331.

7. Mr. S.S.Dey, countered the above submission contending mainly that the doctrine of pleasure is applicable to the present case in removing the petitioners and constituting a new interim council inasmuch as this court in several cases has held that the members of the council in respect of other ethnic development councils like Bodoland Autonomous Council (before its inclusion in the 6th Schedule to the constitution in India) Rabha Hasong, Tiwa

(Lalung), Deuri and Mishing Autonomous Councils, in which similar questions arose after removal of Chairman and Members, was decided that the doctrine of pleasure is applicable. According to him, the legal position in this regard has been re-affirmed in various judgements of the Apex Court as well as this court rendered in State of Assam-Vs- Makhan Chandra Pegu, reported in 2006(1) GLT 472(DB) and Mahesh Doley –Vs- State of Assam, reported 2006 (3) GLT 832 (DB). He has referred to a recent order dated

2.5.2011 passed in Rabha Hasong, Tiwa (Lalung), Deuri and Mishing

Autonomous Council, in which similar questions arose due to removal of Chairman and Members, wherein the issue was decided in the affirmative.

According to him, the legal position in this regard has been re-affirmed by various judgements of the Apex Court as well as this court rendered in State of Assam-Vs- Makhan Chanda Pegu, reported in 2006(1) GLT 472 (DB) and order dated 18.9.2007 passed in

W.P(C)No.1534/11 H.Meraton Singha & 4 ors-Vs-State of Assam . The said case relates to constitution of development of Interim Council of Manipuries consisting of 25 members, wherein the petitioners of the said writ petition were not included. This court in the said case was not inclined to interfere with the Notification constituting Manipuri Development Council and directed the State Government to make an endeavour to do away with the interim development council by way of constitution of regular council in due course. Expectation was expressed that such regular council would be constituted as expeditiously as possible.

8. Besides, the maintainability of the writ petition has been questioned by the private respondents on the ground that the council is not a statutory body and its members do not have any statutory right to continue in the council since their appointments are governed merely by doctrine of pleasure of the sovereign authority and as such the petitioners have no enforceable legal right far less the fundamental and other constitutional rights to be inducted as members of the council or to claim constitution of the council by including any particular person.

9. The petitioners, according to the learned counsel for the private respondents, have suppressed certain material facts which are relevant for the purpose of deciding this case. In this regard he has referred to averments made in paragraph 3(i) to (v) of the aforesaid Misc. application, which are reproduced hereunder-

“i. Admittedly writ petitioners No.2 and 3 were already members of the Council constituted vide the impugned order dated 16-02-2011. Further by another order contained in No. TAD/ BC/ 491/ 2007/07 dated 25-02-2011 the writ petitioner No.5 was also included in the re-constituted Council. ii. That it is known to the writ petitioners that on 21.02.2011 the members of the re-constituted council held their meeting electing Shri Babul Rongmei as a Chairman of the Council. In terms of the election the erstwhile Chairman Shri Ngur Sungthang (Writ Petitioner No.2) had handed over the charge of the office of the Chairman to the newly elected Chairman Shri Babul Rongmei on 28.02.2011 by executing a Charge Hand Over Memo. iii. It is very much within the knowledge of the writ petitioners that the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam W.P.T. & B.C. Department had issued an order No.TAD/BC/450/2008 dated 01-03-2011 inter alia directing the Joint Secretary of the Department to convene a meeting for oath taking programme for the Chairman, Vice-Chariman and members of the newly created Council on 02-03-2011 in the office of the Directorate of the W.P.T & B.C. at 11.30 AM. iv. That in compliance of the aforesaid order dated 01-03-2011 all the members of the newly re-constituted council including the Writ Petitioner No.1,2,& 5 took oath on 02-03-2011 as members of the Council. v. That it is thus apparent that on 14-03-2011, i.e. the date when the writ petitioner No.1 had sworn the affidavit appended to the writ petition, the re- constituted Council ordered vide the Notification dated 16-02-2011 (Annexure-VI to the Writ Petition) had already become functional and the order dated 16.2.2011 had already been given effect to.”

10. I have closely examined the pleadings and considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. Several cases on removal of members and re-constitution of Interim Council, mostly in respect of Mishing Autonomous Council, had been adjudicated by this court on several occasions. A Single Bench of this Court in Mahesh Doley – Vs-

State of Assam & ors. reported in 2003 (1) GLT 33 held that Interim Council is an entity, distinct and separate from its member and as such cannot be replaced or re-constituted. It was also held therein that though re-constitution or re-placement of interim council is impermissible but since members of the

Interim Council can be removed, the removable or replacement of the members constituting the Interim Council has the effect of reconstituting the council itself. However, it was held therein that there is no right of hearing when one is removed as the holding of such office depends on the pleasure of the Govt. unless the removal is stigmatic. Makhan Pegu (supra) relates to removal of vice Chairman and Executive Members of Interim Mishing

Autonomous Council on the request of the Chief Executive Member on the ground of their unsatisfactory works. Under such circumstances in the said case it was held that removal of said Vice Chairman and Members were stigmatic and so the impugned removal orders was set aside with liberty to

Govt. to take action in accordance with law.

11. But the above decision of the learned Single Bench of this court in

Makhan Pegu (supra) and Mohesh Doley (supra) have been set aside by a

Division Bench of this court in the State of Assam & ors. –Vs- Makhan Pegu and ors reported in 2006(1)GLT 472 which was re-affirmed by another

Division Bench in Mahesh Doley & ors—Vs- State of Assam reported in

2006(3) GLT 832. The learned Division Bench in the State of Assam & ors –

Vs- Makhan Pegu & ors(supra) discussed the issue in paragraph 6 of the judgment and held as follows: “6.A bare reading of the provisions makes it clear that the Government is duty bound, as soon as possible, to take steps for constitution of an Interim General Council by nominating and to nominate Executive Council therefrom to perform duties till the General Council is constituted in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The whole thing is transitional in nature. The nomination so made to the Interim General Council or to the Executive Council is not for any particular period; it does not assure any tenure as such. They obviously hold the office during the pleasure of the State Government. Precisely, for that reason, the proviso confers unfettered discretion upon the Government to remove any or all of the members of such Interim General Council or the Executive Council, as the case may be, being replaced by any other persons of the Government’s choice. The proviso does not admit any other interpretation. The individuals nominated as members to the Interim General Council and as well as Executive Council as a temporary measure till the General Council is constituted in accordance with the provisions of the Act are liable to be removed or replaced by the Government at any time without assigning any reason whatsoever.”

12. Following the above decisions, the other Division Bench in Mahesh Doley and other (supra) held in paragraph 10 as under: “ In our considered opinion the expression ‘removed and replaced’ employed in proviso to Section 80 may have to be understood in proper context. Both the words used convey the same manning of replacement of nominated members at pleasure. The word ‘removed’ may perhaps gave rise to an unnecessary debate and had the legislature not used said word it would not have resulted in this litigation. It is not any removal as is commonly understood which is always stigmatic and what the legislature intended is only replacement.”

13. In the context, the submissions of Mr. P K Roychoudhury, learned counsel for the petitioners that the decisions of the Division Bench of this court in the aforesaid cases are not a good law and not applicable to present case in view of the latest decision of the Supreme Court in

B.P.Singhal (supra), it is necessary to refer to the facts and circumstances of the aforesaid case. The case of B.P.Singhal relates to removal of four Governors before completion of their terms of five years and issuance of a

Writ of Certiorari quashing the order of removal of Governors. In the said case scope of doctrine of pleasure, its origin and application in English and

Indian Law have been discussed elaborately. Reference has been made by the learned counsel for the petitioners to the observations made by the Supreme

Court in paragraph 34 of the judgement which is reproduced below:

“ The doctrine of pleasure, however, is not a licence to act with unfettered discretion to act arbitrarily, whimsically, or capriciously. It does not dispense with the need for a cause for withdrawal of the pleasure. In other words, “ at pleasure” doctrine enables the removal of a person holding office at the pleasure of an authority, summarily, without any obligation to give any notice or hearing to the person removed, and without any obligation to assign any reasons or disclose any cause or the removal, or withdrawal of pleasure. The withdrawal of pleasure cannot be at the sweet will, whim and fancy of the authority, but can only be for valid reasons. ”

14. Emphasis has been made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that ours is a democratic form of Govt.governed by Rule of Law and as such doctrine of pleasure cannot be used or applied to in the manner it has been done by the respondent-authorities. The post of Governor is known as gubernatorial post provided under Article 156 of the Constitution of India.

Under Article 156(1), the Governor holds office during the pleasure of the

President and under proviso to Article 156 (3) the Governor may hold office after expiration of his terms until his successor enters upon his office. It was, therefore, held by the Apex Court that under Article 156 (1), the Governor holds office during pleasure of the President of India and the President can remove the Governor from office at any time without assigning any reason and without giving any opportunity to show cause. However, it has been held that no reason needs be assigned for discontinuance of the pleasure resulting in removal; the power under Article 156 (1) cannot be exercised in an arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable manner. The power will have to be exercised in rare and exceptional circumstances for valid and compelling reason. The question arises as to whether the above doctrine of pleasure as pronounced by the Supreme Court could be applied to the present case keeping in view the surrounding facts and circumstances of the case. It may be noticed that the Barak Valley Hills Tribe Development Council is not provided under any constitutional provisions of law. It is not even a creation of any legislation. It was /is constituted as a matter of Govt. policy on/with

approval of the State cabinet. In other words, it is a creation of a public policy of the State Govt. without any legislative sanction. It is only an administrative arrangement which may be allowed to continue or abolished by the Govt. at any point of time. The post of Chairman or Vice Chairman or members of the council cannot be equated with any constitutional post or post created under the provision of any law and as such in my opinion the principle of doctrine of pleasure could easily be applied to in removing the Chairman or Vice

Chairman or members of the council. Similarly the Government at its pleasure may include or drop all or any of the members and reconstitute the council.

15. There is another aspect to be noticed. As stated earlier, the

Mishing Autonomous Council was constituted under the provisions of the

Mishing Autonomous Council Act. Section 80 of the said Act provides for constitution of an interim council till regular general council is constituted by election. The cases dealt with by the Single Bench as well as the Division

Bench of this court, as referred earlier, are connected with removal of some members of the interim Mishing Council thereof by excluding some earlier members and including some new members. The learned Division Bench of this Court clearly held that doctrine of pleasure is applicable. In the case at hand the facts and circumstances are different from the ones in those cases of

Mishing Autonomous Council. The materials placed before this court establish that petitioners No.2, 3 and 5 have been included as members in the reconstituted interim council vide impugned Notification dated 16.2.2011.

These three petitioners should not have any grievance against the impugned

Notification. It must be noted that petitioner no.3 was the vice Chairman of the council constituted earlier by Notification dated 4.9.2006. There is a demand from the other petitioners i.e. petitioners No.1, 4 to 13 for their inclusion in the present reconstituted interim Council. The basis for such demand for inclusion is a purported recommendation made by a letter dated

20.1.2011 written by former President of the Council constituted in 2006, who has been nominated again as a member in the present council constituted on

16.2.2011. Since there is no case of removal or exclusion of member(s) there is no question of application of doctrine doctrine of pleasure. The decisions on doctrine of pleasure as pronounced by the Apex Court as well as learned

Division Bench of this Court cannot be pressed into service of the present case. To make this point clear, I would like to refer to relief sought by the petitioner which are –

(i) to set aside and quash the impugned Notification dated 16.2.2011 (Annexure-VI), or

(ii) to issue Writ in the nature of Mandamus or like nature directing the respondent-authorities to recall, rescind or otherwise forebear from giving effect to the impugned Notification dated 16.2.2011, or (iii) to direct the respondent-authorities to reconstitute the council by including the names of all the petitioners

16. For granting the above reliefs the petitioners must show to the satisfaction of the court that the council constituted vide impugned Notification

failed to give fair, due and proper representation to all the Hills Tribes inhabiting the Barak Valley. The petitioners have not indicated which of the Hills Tribes have not been given due representation in the Council or is left unrepresented. This court cannot undertake an exercise to enquire into the said aspect of the matter. It is to be left to the executive. There should be an enquiry to find out if any of the

Hills Tribes has been deprived of proper and due representation to the Council and if it is found that there is some lapse in this regard, the executive must take remedial steps by way of including moré members from the unrepresented tribes and in such event the petitioners or some of them should be included in the

Council by excluding the members of the tribes having over representation.

17. Similarly removal or replacement of present Chairman and Vice

Chairman of the Council, this court shall have no authority unless it can be shown that they have not been duly elected by the members of the Council. The impugned Notification dated 16.2.2011 speaks about election to the post of

Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Council by members within 15 days. There is no pleadings in the writ petition that no election was held for electing the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Council or that the election, if any held, was irregular or illegal in any manner. The private respondents have pleaded that the Chairman and the Vice Chairman of the Council have been elected and the former/outgoing

Chairman of the Council has handed over the charge to the newly elected

Chairman on 28.2.2011. Besides the members of newly re-constituted Council including the petitioners No. 2,3 and 5 have taken oath on 2.3.2911 as members of the Council. The private respondents also pleaded that the newly re-constituted

Council has already become functional. The aforesaid pleadings of private respondents in Misc.Case No. 1254/2011 for cancellation/vacation /modification of the interim order dated 31.3.2011 have not been rebutted by the petitioners by filing any counter affidavit and in a normal course the said pleadings are to be accepted by the court.

18. There is, however, a disturbing feature in this case. This is an admitted position that the Memo of Settlement was signed as far back as on 18.3.1996 between the President of the Cachar Hills People Federation and the Deputy

Secretary to the Government of Assam, W.P.T.& B.C. Department in presence of the then Chief Minister of Assam, late Hiteswar with avowed “Objectives of

Setting of the Councils to provide maximum possible autonomy within a frame work of Constitution of India for social, economic , educational, ethnic and cultural advancements” of the Hills Tribes living in the District of Cachar, Karimganj and

Hailakandi. The Government of Assam has taken no further step except to constitute and re-constitute the Interim Council from time to time. The Council so far constituted/re-constituted has not attained any legal status as no legislation has been passed providing constitution of Barak Valley Hills Tribe Development

Council to achieve the promised objectives. Any right thinking person would question how long such situation would continue. Is it not a political and social exploitation over the backward Hills tribes people in the name of providing false assurances of so called “maximum possible autonomy”. Time is ripe for taking up the matter seriously by the State Government to bring a legislation as has been done so far in cases of other tribes like Rabha, Mishing, Tiwa (Lalung) , Sonowal

Kachari, Tengal Kachari, Deuri etc. The State Government must do away with the ad-hoc Interim Council and provide regular elected Council by enacting appropriate law.

19. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this court, with great expectation, would direct the respondent-authorities, particularly the respondent No.1, the Commissioner and Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, W.P.T

& B.C. Department to enquire or cause an enquiry through a competent officer in the rank of Joint Secretary of its department to make on the spot verification /enquiry and find out whether due and proper representation has been given to all the hills tribes, who would submit a report to him for taking remedial steps. It is directed that if any Hills Tribe is left out or unrepresented steps be taken to include members to represent such unrepresented tribes in the reconstituted council. It is also directed that there is an over representation of any particular Hills Tribe, they

should be excluded to maintain the balance of representation. The respondent

No.1 shall take into consideration the cases of petitioner No.1, 4 to 13 for inclusion in the Council as members for giving due representation to their respective tribes if found justified. It is further directed that the respondents particularly respondent

No.1 shall take necessary steps for introducing/placing Bill before the State

Legislative Assembly for enactment of appropriate law providing election, constitution of council and other provisions for managing the affairs of the Barak

Valley Hills Tribe Development Council, preferably during the present financial year.

20. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of. The parties shall bear their own costs.

JUDGE

Nandi