Gauhati High Court
WP(C)/143/2025 of Sh. Lalchhandama and 2 Ors. Vs The Lai autonomous District Council (LADC) and 5 Ors. on 16 July 2026
GAHC030007902025 THE GAUHATI
GAHC030007902025
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/143/2025
Sh. Lalchhandama and 2 Ors.
S/o Bidrojoi, R/o Saibawh-I Village, Lawngtlai District, Mizoram 2: Sh. Rothangpuia 3: Sh. Khumthaira
VERSUS
The Lai autonomous District Council (LADC) and 5 Ors.
r/b the Chief Executive Member, Lawngtlai, Mizoram 2:The Executive Member i/c LAD
Lai Autonomous District Council (LADC)
3:The Local Administrative Officer
Lai Autonomous District Council (LADC)
4:Sh. Piangmawia
5:Sh. Seihlailam
6:Sh. Tarabol
Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Lalpianfela Chawngthu Advocate for the Respondent : Mr. R. Lalhmunsiama for R 1- 3
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NELSON SAILO
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
Date : 17.07.2026
Office Note dated 15.07.2026 indicates that the petitioners have not taken fresh steps for service of notice upon the respondent Nos. 4 to 6. [2.] Mr. Lalpianfela Chawngthu, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that aggrieved with the Notification dated 06.11.2025 suspending the Saibawh-I Village Council under the Lai Autonomous District Council (Annexure – 11), the petitioners have approached this Court. He submits that the suspension of the Village Council was for three (3) months and extendable for a period of one (1) month. He submits that more than four (4) months have been lapsed since then and therefore, the matter has become infructuous. [3.] He submits that the petitioners are the President, Vice President and Treasurer of the Village Council and in fact, this Court vide Order dated 25.11.2025 had passed an interim order to the effect that handing over of the charge to the Caretaker should not be done. In other words, the handing over of charge was stayed. [4.] The learned counsel, therefore, submits that the petitioners are functioning as the President, Vice President and Treasurer in view of the interim order.
[5.] Mr. R. Lalhmunsiama, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 also submits that the suspension of the Village Council has not been extended after issuance of the impugned Notification dated 06.11.2025 and in view of the Stay Order, the petitioners are functioning in their respective capacity in the Village Council concerned. [6.] Considering the above submissions, it appears that the writ petition has become infructuous, as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner. [7.] Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of as infructuous.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant