Shillong, Jan 28: The Meghalaya High Court on Tuesday said the validity of an election of the chief executive member (CEM) of the Khasi Hills Autonomous District Council (KHADC) cannot depend upon the contingency of the notification by the state government as this will undermine the autonomy of the district council.

“Mere fact that the State Government has not notified the election of the petitioner does not lead to a situation where it can be said that the petitioner has not at all been elected,” the Court said in its judgment passed in view of a writ petition filed by the KHADC chief executive member (CEM), Latiplang Kharkongor.

It may be mentioned here that the chief minister Conrad K Sangma had said that the KHADC is presently without a CEM since the election of Kharkongor is yet to be notified by the state government.

However, the Court said that the process of election is governed by the Rules of 1951, which does not anywhere provide for notification of result of election by the State Government.

“When the petitioner has been elected as the Chief Executive Member of the Council, validity of his election cannot be made to depend upon the contingency of the notification by the State Government or else as this would completely negate the opinion of the majority and shall undermine the autonomy of the District Council, howsoever limited it may be, envisaged in the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution of India,” the judgment said.

It also pointed out that order of the Governor granting approval to the election of the petitioner, regardless of whether it is at all required in law, has neither been withdrawn till date nor has been otherwise challenged by anyone, by procedure known to law, before any Court.

“The contention that the Governor of the State of Meghalaya is bound by aid and advice of the Council of Ministers and since the State Government has advised him to appoint an Administrator, to run the office of the District Council by invoking paragraph 16(2) of the Sixth Schedule, could be a matter between the Government and the Governor. But the process of democracy cannot be scuttled only because the present political dispensation of the State does not approve of the election of the petitioner as the Chief Executive Member and the group led by him,” it said.

“So long as the petitioner enjoys the confidence of majority, his functioning as duly elected Chief Executive Member and that of his Executive Committee, cannot be stalled as that would frustrate the popular mandate,” it added.

The Court however uphold one argument of the Advocate General that there is no provision under Rule 22(2) empowering the Governor to approve the election of the Chief Executive Member and that the Governor does not possess the power of this nature anywhere in the Constitution.

It said obviously, report of election of the petitioner as Chief Executive Member sent to the Governor is only in the form of communication of the event of his election by majority of votes only for being placed on record.

In such a situation, there is no occasion for the State Government rendering aid and advice to the Governor with reference to Articles 163 and 164 of the Constitution and the Governor being bound thereby, it stated.