Amri Karbi Development Society And Ors vs State Of Assam And Ors

,,,,

Sudhanshu Dhulia, CJ",,,,

Heard Mr. I. Choudhury, learned senior counsel for the writ appellants/applicants/review petitioners, assisted by Mr. A. Barua, Advocate. Also",,,,

heard Mr. D. Mazumdar, learned Add. Advocate General, Assam, assisted by Mr. R. Dhar, learned Government Advocate representing respondent",,,,

no.1. Mr. N. Borah, learned counsel appears for respondent no.2 whereas Mr. S. Neogi, learned counsel appears for respondent no.3.",,,,

The writ appellant no.1 is the Amri Karbi Development Society and the writ appellant nos.2 and 3 are the President and Secretary of the Amri,,,,

Karbi Development Society. Their principal grievance is for action of the State Government and consequently they are also aggrieved by the order of,,,,

the learned Single Judge of this Court as well by which six out of thirty-six constituencies of Tiwa Autonomous Council have been wrongly,,,,

constituted. Their contention would be the State Government has not worked in accordance with law while undergoing an exercise of delimitation and,,,,

that their contention before the learned Single Judge has not been appreciated. They have also challenged the very constitution of these constituencies,,,,

and the consequent elections to be held on these constituencies.,,,,

The Legislative Council of Assam passed an Act known as “The Lalung (Tiwa) Autonomous Council Act, 1995†by which the Lalung",,,,

Autonomous Council was created. Thereafter, by an amendment brought in the year 2001, the name of Lalung (Tiwa) Autonomous Council",,,,

(Amendment) Act, 2001 was changed and the word “Tiwa†has been substituted in place of “Lalung (Tiwa). From the year 2001 it became",,,,

“Tiwa Autonomous Council†(from hereinafter referred to as “the Autonomous Councilâ€). Initially, there were twenty-six constituencies and",,,,

later on in the year 2015, it was increased to thirty-six constituencies. The admitted position is that elections were held only in respect of thirty out of",,,,

thirty-six constituencies and no elections were held the remaining six constituencies which are ̶ 26-Dimoria Constituency, 32-Digaru Constituency, 33-",,,,

Khetri Constituency, 34-Sonapur Constituency, 35-Ampri Constituency and 36-Phong- Ari constituency respectively. In the year 2010, however,",,,,

elections were held for only thirty constituencies.,,,,

Again, in the year 2015, elections were held to only thirty constituencies leaving the aforesaid six constituencies. When, elections were to be held",,,,

for the year 2020 for the Autonomous Council. A writ petition i.e. WP(C) No.4630/2015 was filed by the residents of those constituencies where the,,,,

elections had not been held so far with the prayer that since they are the residents of six constituencies which is a part of the Autonomous Council yet,,,,

they are being deprived of their democratic rights and not allowed to elect their representatives of the Autonomous Council. The learned Single Judge,,,,

after the exchange of pleadings came to the conclusions that the State does not have any reasonable cause for not holding the elections to these thirty-,,,,

six constituencies and thereafter passed the following orders:-,,,,

“14.The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid two decisions have categorically laid down the importance of holding the timely,,,,

elections in the grass root level organizations. The Lalung (Tiwa) Autonomous Council being the creature of a statute, when there is a",,,,

requirement under the statute to hold the elections in all the Constituencies, there is a legal obligation on the part of the authorities to hold",,,,

such elections. This Court is of the opinion that the reason cited for not holding the election in the aforesaid six numbers of Constituencies,,,,

in the year 2010 and 2015 are absolutely untenable in law as the state machinery has to deal with any law and order issue which may arise,,,,

at the time of holding the elections, that too, for a Council existing in a geographical area covering parts of only three districts of the State",,,,

of Assam.,,,,

15.In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the discussions made, though no directions are issued so far as the elections held in",,,,

the year 2015 are concerned in view of the fact that the term is on the verge of completion, it is directed that for the elections which are to",,,,

be held in the year 2020, the same has to include all the 36 numbers of Constituencies as stipulated in the Act of 1995, as amended. Since",,,,

the reason cited for not holding the election in the aforesaid six numbers of Constituencies in the year 2010 and 2015 are held to be,,,,

untenable in law, the State respondents are restrained from taking up any similar reasons so far as the elections scheduled in 2020 are",,,,

concerned.,,,,

16.With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of.â€​",,,,

Thereafter, when the election exercise was initiated, the writ appellants/applicants/review petitioners before this Court came to know that now the",,,,

elections are to be held for the remaining six constituencies as well, and hence they approached this Court and filed review petition before the learned",,,,

Single Judge which was dismissed on 16.12.2020. Against which the writ appellants/applicants/review petitioners has filed present writ appeal. The,,,,

case of the appellants/applicants/review petitioners before the learned Single Judge was that vital facts could not be stated before the learned Single,,,,

Judge. Such as that earlier a Public Interest Litigation (PIL No.35/2015) was filed before a Division Bench of this Court for the same relief by the,,,,

Autonomous Council (Society) saying that the six constituencies should not be included in the elections and considering the wide implications of the,,,,

matter the Division Bench at the relevant time directed as follows:-,,,,

“As such, instead of keeping this PIL pending before this Court, we dispose of the same by granting liberty to the petitioners to make",,,,

appropriate representation before the Chief Secretary to the Government of Assam ventilating their grievances. If such representation is,,,,

submitted by the petitioners along with a copy of this order then the same would be considered on merit and disposed of by making a,,,,

speaking order, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the representation. It is",,,,

made clear that if the petitioners continue to feel aggrieved in the matter even after a decision taken in the representation is communicated,,,,

by the Government, they will be at liberty to approach this Court by filing appropriate proceeding.",,,,

With the above observation, this PIL stands closed.",,,,

No order as to cost.â€​,,,,

The writ appellants/applicants/review petitioners further argue that in terms of the aforesaid directions of the Division Bench the writ,,,,

appellants/applicants/review petitioners had a approached the Government of Assam through its Chief Secretary and the Chief Secretary considering,,,,

the sensitive nature of the matter and after getting approval of the Hon’ble Chief Minister, referred the matter to a Group of Ministers headed by",,,,

a Minister of Industries & Commerce Department to get an amicable solution of the dispute. The exact observations of the Chief Secretary with,,,,

regard to this matter reads as follows:-,,,,

“The matter relating to inclusion and exclusion of the constituencies from the “Tiwa Autonomous Council is very sensitive in nature.,,,,

The issue is to be dealt with utmost care and without affecting communal harmony and peace in the area for which the demand for inclusion,,,,

and exclusion is asked for.,,,,

Constituency,ST,General,Total,% of ST

No. 26 Dimoria,2303,4853,7156,32.183

No.32 Digaru,3022,5189,8211,36.804

No.33 Khetri,1431,7245,8676,16.494

No.34 Sonapur,2223,5121,7346,30.261

No.35 Ampri,865,4476,5341,16.195

No.36 Phong Ari,1107,7325,8432,13.128