PU MYLLAI HLYCHHO AND ORS. versus STATE OF MIZORAM AND ORS.

Citation: [2005] 1 S.C.R. 279 · Decided: 11-01-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.C. LAHOTI · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

I "" 
~ 
--~ 
,+ 
:> "' 
PU MYLLAI HL YCHHO AND ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF MIZORAM AND ORS. 
JANUARY 11, 2005 
[R.C. LAHOTI, CJ., SHIVARAJ V. PATIL, K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, 
B.N. SRIKRISHNA AND G.P. MATHUR, JJ.) 
Constitution of India, 1950-Sixth Schedule as amended by (Constitution 
(Amendment) Act, 1988)-Paragraph 2(1), 2(6A), 20 BB, Article 163: 
Formation of District Councils-Nomination of members by the Governor 
in consultation with Council of Ministers-Held, Governor vested with 
discretionary power to nominate members-Mere consultation with Council 
of Ministers would not mean that Governor failed to exercise discretionary 
power vested in him-Nomination held valid 
District Councils-Nominated Members-Termination of membership-
Validity of-Scheme prescribing nominated members to hold office at the 
pleasure of Governor-Power to terminate not left to discretion of Governor 
but in consultation with Council of Ministers-Held, termination is valid as 
Governor acted on the advice of Council of Ministers-Non hearing of members 
before termination is not illegal as they held office at the pleasure of Governor. 
Interpretation of statutes-Omission of applicability of rule of Natural 
Justice in a statute expressly or by implication would not invalidate the statute. 
The Sixth Schedule to the Constitution evolved a scheme for 
administration of tribal areas in Assam, Meghalaya Mizoram and Tripura 
through institution of District Councils or Regional councils. Pursuant to 
the scheme, Mara Autonomous District Council (MADC) was constituted. 
The nominated members were to hold office at the pleasure of Governor. 
On 8.8.2000, 4 persons were nominated by Governor. On 5.12.2001, 
Governor notified termination of the nominated members. Subsequently 
Governor issued another Notification dated 6.12.2001 nominating 4 
persons. In a writ petition challenging the termination and fresh 
nomination, Single Judge upheld termination order and set aside the fresh 
nomination of 3 out of 4 members. Both Appellant and State appealed. 
279 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
280 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2005] I S.C.R. 
A Division Bench refused to interfere with the order of Single Judge. in 
special leave to appeal, a Division Bench granted special leave and in view 
of the fact that the issue involved substantial question of law as to the 
interpretation of the Constitution, the matter came before the Constitution 
Bench. 
B 
Appellant contended that the termination order was passed without 
giving any notice and hence there was violation of principles of Natural 
,Justice; that Notification dated 6.12.2001 nominating 4 members by virtue 
of powers under sub paragraph (I) of Paragraph 2 was not constitutionally 
valid; and that in case of nomination, Governor accepts the advice of his 
C Council of Ministers and did not exercise discretionary powers vested in 
him under Paragraph 20BB of Sixth Schedule. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I. Governor was bound by the aid and advice of the Council 
D of Ministers and the termination of the 4 members from the MADC by 
order of the Governor on 5.12.2001 was perfectly in accordance with the 
Constitutional provisions and the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution. The 
nomination of the 4 members to the Council by order dated 6.12.2001 was 
legal and the Governor acted by virtue of the discretionary power vested 
E in him. (294-F-G] 
2. Sub paragraph 6A of Paragraph 2 shows that the members 
nominated shall hold office at the pleasure of the Governor. The Governor 
is given powers to terminate the membership of the Council under sub-
paragraph 6A of Paragraph 2. The Governor is not given any discretion 
F under Paragraph 20BB, in respect of powers to be exercised under sub 
paragraph (6A) of Paragraph 2. Under the discretionary powers of the 
Governor, in discharge of his functions, the power to be exercised under 
sub paragraph (6A) of Paragraph 2 is not included, whereas it is 
specifically mentioned that the power of the Governor to be exercised 
under sub paragraph (1) of Paragraph 2 could be exercised in his 
G discretion in the mode prescribed under paragraph 20-BB of the Sixth 
Schedule. Thus, these provisions would show that as regards the 
nomination of 4 members to the MADC, the Governor can exercise the 
discretionary powers whereas the power of termination of the members 
under sub paragraph (6A) of Paragraph 2 is not left to the discretion of 
H the Governor, but he shall exercise the same as env
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.