T CAJEE Vs. U JORMANIK SIEM ANOTHER
LAWS(SC)-1960-9-24
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: GAUHATI)
Decided on September 20,1960

T.CAJEE Appellant
VERSUS
U.JORMANIK SIEM Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

IN RE : PRABIR KUMAR BASU VS. WESTING HOUSE SAXBY FARMER LTD. & ORS [LAWS(CAL)-1985-5-45] [REFERRED TO]
SHAMSHER SINGH SANDHU VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(GAU)-2008-8-15] [REFERRED TO]
P.S.RAWAL VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2013-3-38] [REFERRED TO]
K.M. BINDRA VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. [LAWS(DLH)-1973-2-36] [REFERRED TO]
PHOOL SINGH VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2014-11-58] [REFERRED TO]
ROCKWELD ELECTRODES INDIA LIMITED VS. K C VIJAYAN [LAWS(MAD)-1978-8-4] [REFERRED TO]
TELECOM EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD VS. SCHEDULED CASTES SCHEDULED TRIBES MINORITY COMMUNITIES AND BACKWARD [LAWS(KAR)-1990-8-64] [REFERRED TO]
R S GUPTA VS. STATE BANK OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-1998-5-16] [REFERRED]
GUMAN SINGH BARATH VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2002-2-10] [REFERRED TO]
K K JAGGIA VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-1966-9-1] [REFERRED TO]
R P KAPUR VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-1963-11-21] [RELIED ON]
ASHWANI KUMAR VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(SC)-1995-11-123] [RELIED ON]
SANJAY KUMAR VS. STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY [LAWS(PAT)-2010-4-622] [REFERRED TO]
THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL, M P VS. S K DUBEY [LAWS(SC)-2012-2-52] [REFERRED TO]
GOURI RAM KALITA VS. STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS. [LAWS(GAU)-1990-11-9] [REFERRED TO]
BODOLAND TERRITORIAL COUNCIL VS. CARBON RESOURCES PVT. LTD. [LAWS(GAU)-2018-12-129] [REFERRED TO]
WEST BENGAL KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES BOARD VS. DIBYENDU PROKASH BHATTACHARYA [LAWS(CAL)-1980-3-27] [REFERRED TO]
ASHOK KUMAR DAS VS. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF HOMOEOPATHY [LAWS(CAL)-2009-9-59] [REFERRED TO]
NIZAMUDDIN AHMED VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2007-7-15] [REFERRED TO]
KHAIRUNNISSA RASOOL GOLANDAJ VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2014-5-11] [REFERRED TO]
MEHAR SINGH VS. HIGH COURT OF H.P. [LAWS(HPH)-2007-8-79] [REFERRED TO]
BINDU K.B. VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2014-10-322] [REFERRED TO]
VEERENDRA SINGH PUNDIR VS. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND [LAWS(UTN)-2020-2-46] [REFERRED TO]
MARY VS. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD [LAWS(KER)-1975-11-20] [REFERRED TO]
RAMESH VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-1995-8-25] [REFERRED TO]
SURINDER SINGH VS. CENTRAL GOVERNMENT [LAWS(SC)-1986-9-87] [RELIED ON]
ISHWAR DAS MALHOTRA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-1972-2-28] [APPROVED AND REFERRED TO]
SANT RAM SHARMA VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(SC)-1967-7-9] [REFERRED]
S A L NARAYAN ROW N D MEHROTRA VS. ISHWARLAL BHAGWANDAS VRAJLAL KEWALDAS [LAWS(SC)-1965-5-5] [DISTINGUISHED]
B N NAGARAJAN LINGAPPA VEERAPPA SHINDAL VS. STATE OF MYSORES:STATE OF MYSORES [LAWS(SC)-1966-3-16] [RELIED ON]
RAM LAKHAN VS. PRESIDING OFFICER [LAWS(SC)-1999-11-108] [RELIED]
MANAGEMENT OF NAGORI VYAVASAYA SEVA SAHAKARI SANGHA VS. VICTOR DIANUS, ADULT ABBANJARA, ULLAL AND OTHERS [LAWS(KAR)-1984-1-40] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. VS. SHANKAR LAL SHARMA [LAWS(HPH)-2015-12-110] [REFERRED TO]
K. J. JOSEPH VS. NORTH EASTERN HILL UNIVERSITY AND ORS. [LAWS(GAU)-1988-5-13] [REFERRED TO]
U. MESINGH SYIEM VS. SECRETARY, EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF THE DISTRICT COUNCIL OF THE AUTONOMOUS DISTRICT OF KHASI AND JAINTIA HILLS AND ORS. [LAWS(GAU)-1968-7-1] [REFERRED TO]
MEGHALAYA COMMERCIAL TRUCK OWNER AND OPERATORS ASSOCIATION VS. STATE OF MEGHALAYA [LAWS(GAU)-2010-8-20] [REFERRED TO]
DIRECTOR, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT VS. K.RAVI [LAWS(KAR)-2020-1-159] [REFERRED TO]
USHA PURI VS. GOVERNING BODY ADITI MAHAVIDHYALATA UNIV OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2000-5-73] [REFERRED]
AVTAR SINGH SEKHON (IC 4929 K-COL ) VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(J&K)-1979-11-7] [REFERRED TO]
A R KUKALEKAR VS. GOA HOUSING BOARD [LAWS(BOM)-1992-12-32] [REFERRED TO]
BIPIN TIWARI AND ORS. VS. THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. [LAWS(PAT)-2015-1-210] [REFERRED TO]
MANAGING COMMITTEE, RANIHAT HIGH SCHOOL AND ORS. VS. INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS, CIRCLE-I AND ANR. [LAWS(ORI)-1976-11-22] [REFERRED TO]
KESHABA CHANDRA PRADHAN. VS. STATE OF ORISSA AND OTHERS, [LAWS(ORI)-1990-8-49] [REFERRED TO]
ASHOK GAUR VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-1987-2-33] [REFERRED TO]
RADHE SHYAM SONI VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-1990-12-9] [REFERRED TO]
P RAVEENDRAN VS. JAWAHARLAL INSTITUTE OF POSTGRADUATE MEDICAL EDUCATION & RESEARCH, REP BY ITS DIRECTOR [LAWS(MAD)-2018-7-105] [REFERRED TO]
RAM LAKHAN VS. PRESIDING OFFICER [LAWS(SC)-1999-11-65] [REFERRED 1961 1 SCR 750 : (PARA 10)]
PROBODH KUMAR BHOWMICK VS. UNIVERSITY OF CALCUTTA [LAWS(CAL)-1994-9-47] [REFERRED]
RAJYAMALLA BUZARBARUA VS. ASSAM ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL [LAWS(GAU)-1982-12-19] [REFERRED]
NONGKHLAW CLAN VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(GAU)-1997-7-23] [REFERRED TO]
NIRANJAN MAHANTA VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2004-2-57] [REFERRED TO]
SOUTISH YOUROIN VS. STATE OF MEGHALAYA [LAWS(GAU)-2011-9-77] [REFERRED TO]
ANAND VARDHAN CHANDEL VS. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-1978-5-6] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONERS FOR THE PORT OF CALCUTTA VS. BALESWAR SINGH [LAWS(CAL)-1967-6-11] [REFERRED TO]
ISHVERLAL J NAIK VS. PRINCIPAL GOVERNMENT ARTS AND SCIENCE COLLEGE [LAWS(BOM)-1975-3-28] [REFERRED]
P CHIDAMBARAM VS. SECRETARY, ARIGNAR ANNA COLLEGE [LAWS(MAD)-2011-8-459] [REFERRED]
SAMASTIPUR KSHETRIYA GRAMIN BANK & ORS. VS. UMA SHANKAR PRASAD & ORS. [LAWS(PAT)-2017-10-141] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH VS. RAMESH GIR [LAWS(MPH)-2020-9-149] [REFERRED TO]
P. VENKATACHALAM VS. TAHSILDAR [LAWS(MAD)-2022-6-120] [REFERRED TO]
SHAILENDRA KUMAR KASHYAP VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2004-1-78] [REFERRED TO]
RAMESH PRASAD SINGH VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(SC)-1977-11-11] [FOLLOWED]
ANAND PRADHAN AND OTHERS VS. VICE [LAWS(ALL)-1993-9-91] [REFERRED TO]
TRIPURA KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES BOARD VS. ASHIS KANTI SAHA [LAWS(GAU)-2010-6-14] [REFERRED TO]
VENTRAPRAGADA VENKATA KRISHNA RAO VS. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE [LAWS(APH)-1976-6-11] [REFERRED TO]
DIVYA VASUNDHARA FINANCIERS LTD. VS. K.N. SAMANT AND OTHERS [LAWS(GJH)-1989-4-20] [REFERRED TO]
M.R.A.SAMUEL VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-2021-2-112] [REFERRED TO]
BUDDANA VENKATA MURALI KRISHNA VS. STATE OF A P [LAWS(APH)-2015-6-2] [REFERRED TO]
U P SINGH VS. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK [LAWS(DLH)-2011-2-371] [REFERRED TO]
MADAN MOHAN SARAN AND ANOTHER VS. HONBLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-1975-1-58] [REFERRED]
UDAI BIR SINGH VS. DISTRICT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR CO OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ETAH [LAWS(ALL)-1977-4-5] [REFERRED TO]
HARI SINGH MATHUR VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2003-9-16] [REFERRED TO]
SOHAN LAL VS. THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER [LAWS(P&H)-1964-4-23] [REFERRED TO]
PARIMAL TRIVEDI VS. PRADIP PRAJAPATI [LAWS(GJH)-2012-10-140] [REFERRED TO]
ARUN BIKASH CHAUDHURI VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(CAL)-1979-12-21] [REFERRED TO]
TUSTU CHARAN SAHA VS. COLLECTOR, DISTRICT HOOGHLY [LAWS(CAL)-1967-8-35] [REFERRED TO]
TAMIL NADU SELF FINANCING ENGINEERING COLLEGES ASSOCIATION VS. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-1997-8-128] [REFERRED TO]
V T KHANZODE VS. RESERVE BANK OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-1982-3-24] [RELIED ON]
SWARAN LATA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-1979-1-8] [REFERRED TO]
MANGAL PRASAD VERMA VS. BIHAR CO-OPERATIVE MARKETING [LAWS(PAT)-1968-7-6] [REFERRED TO]
JANTIA HILL TRUCK OWNERS ASSOCIATION VS. SHAILANG AREA COAL DEALER AND TRUCK OWNER ASSOCIATION [LAWS(SC)-2009-7-167] [REFERRED TO]
RADHEY SHYAM SONI VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-1991-3-27] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF M.P. VS. RAKESH SETHI [LAWS(SC)-2020-8-33] [REFERRED TO]
HITESHKUMAR JASHWANTSINH TAPARIA (CHIEF FIRE OFFICER , VADODARA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION) VS. MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER [LAWS(GJH)-2015-6-49] [REFERRED TO]
HITESHKUMAR JASHWANTSINH TAPARIA (CHIEF FIRE OFFICER , VADODARA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION) VS. MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER [LAWS(GJH)-2015-6-49] [REFERRED TO]
U. JIDON SINGH SYIEM VS. THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE; DISTRICT COUNCIL, KHASI HILLS AND OTHERS [LAWS(GAU)-1981-5-13] [REFERRED TO]
RAVINDRA RAI VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2003-8-173] [REFERRED TO]
DR. A.C. SAXENA AND OTHERS VS. DR. PRAHLAD KUMAR AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-1977-1-42] [REFERRED TO]
J N MALHOTRA VS. LT GOVERNOR OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-1979-3-25] [REFERRED]
G KPANDE VS. INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA [LAWS(BOM)-2008-9-81] [REFERRED TO]
F AROKIAMARY VS. DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER NORTH CHENNAI [LAWS(MAD)-2010-10-129] [REFERRED TO]
CHANDRA AND CO VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-1980-11-4] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF JHARKHAND VS. ANIL KUMAR MEHTA [LAWS(JHAR)-2014-6-9] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF BIHAR VS. MANOJ MADHUP [LAWS(PAT)-2020-1-163] [REFERRED TO]
MOTI RAM VS. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-1960-9-32] [REFERRED TO]
R. KANNAN VS. GOVERNMENT OF TAMILNADU [LAWS(MAD)-2014-6-191] [REFERRED TO]
R. BHADRAGIRI RAO VS. THE NALGONDA DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE CENTRAL BANK LTD. [LAWS(APH)-2014-7-131] [REFERRED TO]
G. RAMA MOHAN RAO AND ANOTHER VS. THE GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP, BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND CHAIRMAN, AGRICULTURAL, MARKETING & COOPERATIVE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, HYDERABAD AND ANOTHER [LAWS(APH)-2017-3-11] [REFERRED TO]
V P GIDRONIYA VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(SC)-1970-1-10] [REFERRED TO]
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA VS. GAURAV VARSHNEY & ANR. [LAWS(SC)-2016-7-37] [REFERRED TO]
ANANT KUMAR POLEKAR VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-1975-3-8] [REFERRED TO]
S C RAI VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-1976-11-2] [REFERRED TO]
HILLS SYNDICATE VS. NORTH CACHAR HILLS AUTONOMOUS COUNCIL [LAWS(GAU)-2000-3-53] [REFERRED TO]
EWANLANGKI E RYMBAI VS. JAINTIA HILLS DISTRICT COUNCIL [LAWS(GAU)-2003-7-32] [REFERRED TO]
U. PRELLYSHON LYNGDOH NONGUM VS. EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE, DISTRICT COUNCIL, UNITED KHASI-JAINTIA HILLS AND ORS. [LAWS(GAU)-1969-2-5] [REFERRED TO]
U.G. KORING SING VS. EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE, DISTRICT COUNCIL AND ORS. [LAWS(GAU)-1971-4-2] [REFERRED TO]
N. VITTAL PRABHU VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-1968-12-23] [REFERRED TO]
TAMIL NADU FLY ASH BRICKS AND BLOCK'S MANUFACTURES ASSOCIATION VS. M/S. TAMILNADU GENERATION & DISTRIBUTION CORPORATION [LAWS(MAD)-2014-8-21] [REFERRED TO]
BALESWAR SINGH VS. COMMISSIONERS FOR THE PORT OF CALCUTTA [LAWS(CAL)-1966-3-4] [REFERRED TO]
SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER SADAR FAIZABAD VS. SHAMBHOO NARAIN SINGH [LAWS(SC)-1969-3-50] [DISTINGUISHED]
STATE OF MEGHALAYA VS. KA BRHYIEN KURKALANG [LAWS(SC)-1971-11-15] [RELIED ON]
TARAK NATH GHOSH VS. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS [LAWS(PAT)-1965-3-13] [REFERRED TO]
ORISSA STATE PREVENTION AND CONTROL OF POLLUTION BOARD VS. ORIENT PAPER MILLS [LAWS(SC)-2003-3-93] [REFERRED]
STATE OF RAJ. AND ORS. VS. BHUNESHWAR PD. TREVEDI AND ORS. [LAWS(RAJ)-2015-8-78] [REFERRED TO]
GURBACHAN SINGH BACHI VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2004-10-6] [REFERRED TO]
UMASHANKAR SHUKLA VS. ARTS AND COMMERCE COLLEGE [LAWS(MPH)-1968-4-20] [REFERRED TO]
VENTRAPRAGADA VENKATA KRISHNA RAO VS. DISTRICT MAGISTRAL EAST GODAVARI KAKINADA [LAWS(APH)-1976-6-7] [REFERRED TO]
LABOROUS M SYIEM OF MAWLAI MAWROH SHILLONG VS. KHASI HILLS AUTONOMOUS DIST COUNCIL SHILLONG [LAWS(GAU)-2006-3-9] [REFERRED TO]
KHROKSILA NONGKHLAW RNGI UMSNING VS. STATE OF MEGHALAYA [LAWS(GAU)-2008-4-40] [REFERRED TO]
DURBAR OF SUMER PATORSHIP VS. JAINTIA HILLS AUTONOMOUS DISTRICT COUNCIL [LAWS(GAU)-2012-8-81] [REFERRED TO]
VAYAM TECHNOLOGIES LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF TRADE & TAXES [LAWS(DLH)-2016-5-203] [REFERRED TO]
DR. SUKUMAR MUKHERJEE, DR. SYED ABDUL MOMEN, DR. RAM KRISHAN DUTTA ROY, DR. TAPAN DAS CHATTERJEE, DR. SAIBAL GUPTA AND HEATH SERVICE ASSOCIATION WEST BENGAL AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS [LAWS(CAL)-1991-7-53] [REFERRED TO]
BHARAT LAL LATE BAHRAICH EXECUTIVE ENGINEER CONSTRUCTION DIVISION VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2005-3-75] [REFERRED TO]
SDANGYOO L. DKHAR VS. STATE OF MEGHALAYA AND ORS. [LAWS(MEGH)-2016-5-1] [REFERRED TO]
KAMLESHWAR PD CHOUDHARY VS. BIHAR STATE BOARD OF RELIGIOUS TRUST [LAWS(PAT)-1995-8-21] [FOLLOWED ON]
CONSUMER ONLINE FOUNDATION VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2011-4-104] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)This appeal, on a certificate granted under Art. 132 (1) of the Constitution by the Assam High Court, raises questions regarding the interpretation of certain provisions of the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution. A writ petition was filed by U. Jormanik Siem (hereinafter called the respondent) in the Assam High Court against the Chief Executive Member of the District Council (hereinafter called the appellant), United Khas and Jaintia Hills District (hereinafter called the District). The case of the respondent was that he was Siem of Mylliem Siemship in the District and was elected as such by the Myntires and the people according to custom in 1951. After the constitution of the District Council for the District, in June 1952, the Siemship was brought under it and the respondent continued to discharge the administrative and judicial functions, for which he was remunerated by a share of the gross income of the Siemship. The Siem once appointed could not be removed from his office except through a referendum of the people according to custom until such custom was changed by legislation passed by the District Council with the concurrence of the Governor. No such legislation had however been passed till the writ petition was made on July 8, 1959. But on account of political differences between the respondent and the then Chief Executive Member an attempt was made after the General Elections of 1957 to harm the respondent. In consequence certain charges were levelled against the respondent and a Durbar was called by the appellant for July 6, 1959, and the respondent was asked to be resent at the Durbar to defend himself. It is not clear whether the Durbar was held or not but an order was issued on July 7, 1959, by the appellant in which it was said that the charges against the respondent had been forwarded to him and he had been given an opportunity to show cause on or before July 17, 1959, why he should not be removed from his office and that he had failed to appear before the appellant on July 7 as ordered. Therefore, the respondent was suspended from his office from July 8, 1959 and was required to make over charge to the acting Siem on the same day. The respondent however filed the writ petition on July 8, 1959 which was admitted the same day and notice was issued to the appellant to show cause why the writ should not be granted. The High Court also passed an order staying the operation of the order of the appellant dated July 7, 1959. The respondent contended that he could not be removed from his office or suspended by the Executive Committee of the District Council and that the order of the appellant suspending him was illegal and ultra vires being against custom and usage relating to that matter. Further the order of the appellant was without jurisdiction as it was passed without the approval of the District Council and there was no emergency justifying the order. The order was also mala fide and was due to political animosity between the respondent and the Executive Committee.
(2.)The petition was opposed on behalf of the appellant, and its main contention was that the Siem was nominated by an electoral college consisting of the representatives of several clans and that the people in general had nothing to do with it and that nomination of the Siem by the electoral college was subject to approval of the Government. In accordance with that custom, the respondent's nomination by the myntri-electors to the Siemship of Mylliem was approved by the Government and he was appointed to the office of Siem subject to confirmation by the District Council when that body came into existence. After the District Council was constituted in 1952, it approved the provisional appointment made by the Government and confirmed it on certain terms mentioned in the letter of April 9, 1953. Latter these terms were modified by the District Council in certain particulars by latter dated August 9, 1955, and the respondent had been working as Siem by virtue of this confirmation by the District Council on the terms conveyed to him in the two letters mentioned above. There was no custom which required a referendum of the people before the Siem of Mylliem could be removed from office. On the other hand, the Siem being appointed by the Government formerly and now by the District Council was liable to removal and or suspension by the appointing authority in case he did not act in accordance with the terms of his appointment and was guilty of oppression, misconduct or dereliction of duty. The charge of political animosity against the then Chief Executive Member was denied and attention was drawn to the respondent's conduct in the discharge of his duties which showed that he was unfit to hold the office of Siem; consequently an order was passed on July 7, 1959, suspending him and the order was legal, intra vires and in keeping with custom and usage of the land and it was not necessary to obtain the approval of the District Council to the passing of that order which was in accordance with the terms of appointment of the respondent. Further the Executive Committee considering all the circumstances of the case, was of the opinion that the matter was of emergency and therefore took action without getting the order approved by the District Council.
(3.)The High Court did not go into the question whether there was any custom by which the Siem could be removed only by a referendum. It held that after the coming into force of the Constitution, the Khasi States lost all existence as separate entities except in so far as their existence or authority was preserved by the Constitution. It also held that the respondent was appointed to the office of Siem by the Deputy Commissioner on behalf of the Government with due regard to the nomination made by the Myntri-electors and this appointment was subject to confirmation by the District Council when that body was constituted and that in fact the District Council confirmed the appointment on April 9, 1953, on certain terms which were revised in 1955. It also held that the administration of the district vested in the District Council; but it was of the view that the appointment and succession of Siems were never intended to be its administrative function and therefore, the District Council could only act in this matter by making law with the assent of the Governor and not by passing order in exercise of its administrative functions. Therefore the power to appoint, even if it included the power to dismiss, could be exercised by the District Council only by means of proper legislation. In the result, the High Court allowed the petition and directed that the order of July 7, 1959, should not be given effect to as it was not supported by law. Thereupon the appellant applied for and obtained a certificate from the High Court under Art. 132 of the Constitution; and that is how the matter has come up before us.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.