SILAS IAWROD AND SHRI. SIKIAL WANNIANG Vs. KHASI HILLS AUTONOMOUS DISTRICT COUNCIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. B.M. Chyne, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. VGK Kynta, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. R. Thangkhiew, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No. 1 -16. Also heard Mr. H.L. Shangreiso, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No. 17 & 18. By this writ petition, the petitioners is assailing the order of the Executive Committee, Khasi Hills Autonomous District Council, Shillong dated 21.12.2011 (Annexure -I to the writ petition) which reads as follows: -

(2.) FOR deciding the short question called for consideration in the present writ petition, it is not required to delve deep into the factual matrix leading to the filing of the present writ petition. Sans detail, only the brief fact is noted. The respondent No. 18 was appointed as Syiem of Malaisohmat Syiemship on 08.04.2009 and the respondent No. 18 was to run the administration of Hima (Syiemship) as per the customs and traditions of the Hima (Syiemship) and not at his own sweet will. This fact is not disputed by the parties inasmuch as, the administration of the Hima (Syiemship) is to be carried out as per the customs and traditions of the Hima (Syiemship).

(3.) THE writ petitioners and eight others made a complaint dated 15.06.2009 to the Executive Member, I/C Elaka, Khasi Hills Autonomous District Council making serious allegations against the respondent No. 18 in the matter of discharging and functioning as Chief/Syiem. A copy of the said complaint dated 15.06.2009 is available at Annexure -5 to the writ petition. The Executive Committee after consideration of the said complaint filed by the petitioners and eight others passed an order dated 22.09.2009 for holding an enquiry against the respondent No. 18 for the charges mentioned in the order itself i.e. "that the management of the affairs of the Syiemship by him (respondent No. 18) is against the provision of law of the District Council and as per the Appointment and Succession of Chief and Headmen Act, 1959 has violated the provision of Section 6(f)(h)(i)(k)(l) and (m)".