http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 9  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  661-62 of 2003

PETITIONER: PU Myllai Hlychho & Ors.

RESPONDENT: State of Mizoram & Ors.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 11/01/2005

BENCH: R.C.LAHOTI CJI & S.V.PATIL & K.G.BALAKRISHNAN & B.N.SRIKRISHNA & G.P.MATHUR

JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT

DELIVERED BY: K.G.BALAKRISHNAN, J.

K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, J.

       The provisions of the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution have evolved  a separate scheme for the administration of the tribal areas in Assam,  Meghalaya, Mizoram and Tripura through the institution of District Councils  or Regional Councils.   These councils are vested with legislative power on  specified subjects, allotted sources of taxation and given powers to set up  and administer their system of justice and maintain administrative and  welfare services in respect of land, revenue, forests, education, public health  etc.

       The Mara Autonomous District Council, hereinafter to be referred as  "MADC" has thus been constituted as per the provisions of Paragraph 2(1)  read with Paragraph 20 of the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution of India.   The MADC consists of 19 elected members and the election is through adult  franchise and 4 members are nominated by the Governor of Mizoram by  virtue of the powers conferred on him under Paragraph 2(1) read with  Paragraph 20BB of the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution.   The term of the  elected members is for a period of five years from the date appointed for the  first meeting of the Council after the General Election to the Council and the  four nominated members would hold office at the pleasure of the Governor.    The first sitting of the Council after  the General Election was held on  9.2.2000 and on 8.8.2000 four members, namely, Mrs. Lalbiakluangi Sailo;  Mr. Myllai Hiychho, Mr. C. Lawbei and Mr. S. Lalremthanga were  nominated  by the Governor of  Mizoram as members of MADC in exercise of the powers  conferred under sub-para (1) of Paragraph 2 read with Paragraph 20BB of  the Sixth Schedule, and read with sub-rule (1) of Rule 7 of the Mizoram  Autonomous District Councils (Constitution and Conduct of Business of the  District Councils)  Rules, 1974.

       The Governor of Mizoram by a Notification issued on 5.12.2001  terminated the appointment/nomination of the four members who were  nominated on 8.8.2000.   Thereafter, another Notification was issued on  6.12.2001 whereby four members were nominated to MADC.  It may also be  pointed out that one member, namely, K. Chiama had submitted a No  Confidence Motion to the Secretary, MADC, against the Executive Committee  on 4.12.2001.   The Chairman granted leave for the No Confidence Motion  and it was to be discussed and be voted on 6.12.2001.   The date for  discussion and voting of the No Confidence Motion was postponed from  6.12.2001 to 7.12.2001.   The termination of the membership of  four  members and the nomination of new members were challenged in a Writ

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 9  

Petition filed before the Aizawl Bench of the Gauhati High Court.   The High  Court, by an interim order, suspended the Notification dated 6.12.2001  whereby new members were nominated to MADC.   Aggrieved by the order  of suspension of the nomination to MADC, the State of Mizoram filed an  appeal before the Division Bench, being Writ Appeal No. 518 of 2001.   Initially, the Division Bench granted an ex-parte stay of the order of  suspension of Notification granted by the learned Single Judge, but  thereafter directed that the Writ Petition be heard and disposed of by the  learned Single Judge.

       The learned Single Judge  by his order dated 18.4.2002 partly allowed  the Writ Petition.   The nomination of three out of the four members was set  aside by the learned Single Judge.  However, the Notification dated  5.12.2001 whereby the membership of the four members was terminated  was upheld by the learned Single Judge.   In the Writ Appeal preferred by  the State, the quashing of the Notification dated 6.12.2001 was challenged  and the petitioners in the Writ Petition by a separate Writ Appeal challenged  the order of the learned Single Judge whereby the Notification dated  5.12.2001 was upheld.  The Division Bench  of the High Court of Gauhati  upheld the validity of both the Notifications and aggrieved by the same, the  present appeals have been filed.

       When the matter came up for consideration before a Bench of two  Judges on 27.1.2003, the following order was passed :

       "Leave granted.

       The issue which has been raised in this appeal relates to the  interpretation of paragraph 2(1) and sub-paragraph (6A) of  Paragraph 2 read with paragraph 20-BB of the Sixth Schedule  to the Constitution.   The dispute centres around the nature of  the discretion to be exercised by the Governor in nominating  and removing persons to  the District Councils of Mizoram.    We are of the view that the issue raises a substantial question  of law as to the interpretation of the Constitutional provisions  having repercussions throughout the State of Mizoram.  In  terms of Article 145(3), the matter must be placed before the  Hon’ble Chief Justice.   The application for interim relief is also  referred alongwith the main appeal."

       Thereafter, the matter came up before a Bench of three Judges and  on 28.7.2004, the Bench observed that in view of the order dated  27.1.2003, the matter needs to be heard by a Constitution Bench.   Thus the  matter has come up before the Constitution Bench.

       We heard learned counsel for the appellants and also the learned  counsel for the State of Mizoram.

       The relevant provisions of the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution  regarding the administration of tribal areas in the State of Assam,  Meghalaya, Tripura and Mizoram are as follows:

"1. Autonomous district and autonomous regions\005..

2.      Constitution   of   District Councils and Regional  Councils   \026 (1) There shall be a District Council for each  autonomous district consisting of not more than thirty members  of whom not more than four persons shall be nominated by the  Governor and the rest shall be elected on the basis of adult  suffrage.

(2)     \005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005..

(3)       Each District Council and each Regional Council shall be a

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 9  

body corporate by the name, respectively, of "the District  Council of (name of district)" and "the Regional council of (name  of region)", shall have perpetual succession  and a common seal  and shall by the said name sue and be sued.

(4)     \005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005.. (5)     \005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005.. (6)     \005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005..

(6A)   The elected members of the District Council shall hold  office for a term of five years from the date appointed for the  first meeting of the Council after the general elections to the  Council, unless the District Council is sooner dissolved under  paragraph 16 and a nominated member shall hold office at the  pleasure of the Governor:

Provided that the said period of five years may, while a  Proclamation of Emergency is in operation or if circumstances  exist which, in the opinion of the Governor, render the holding  of elections impracticable, be extended by the Governor for a  period not exceeding one year at a time and in any case where  a Proclamation of Emergency is in operation not extending  beyond a period of six months after the Proclamation has  ceased to operate.

Provided further that a member elected to fill a casual vacancy  shall hold office only for the remainder of the term of office of  the member whom he replaces.

(7)     \005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005."

       By virtue of an amendment carried out by the Constitution  Amendment Act, 1988 [67 of 1988] (Section 2),  a new paragraph was  added as "20BB",  which is to the following effect:

"20-BB:  Exercise of discretionary powers by the Governor in  the discharge of his functions--- The Governor, in the discharge  of his functions under sub-paragraphs (2) and (3) of paragraph  1, sub-paragraphs (1) and (7) of paragraph 2, sub-paragraph  (3) of paragraph 3, sub-paragraph (4) of paragraph 4,  paragraph 5, sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 6, sub-paragraph  (2) of paragraph 7, sub-paragraph (3) of paragraph 9, sub- paragraph (1) of paragraph 14, sub-paragraph (1) of  paragraph   15 and sub-paragraphs (1) and (2) of paragraph 16 of this  Schedule, shall after consulting the Council of Ministers and if he  thinks it necessary, the District Council or the Regional Council  concerned, take such action as he considers necessary in his  discretion."

       The above provisions show that under sub-rule (1) of Paragraph 2,  the Governor of Mizoram is competent to nominate four members to MADC.

       Sub paragraph 6A of Paragraph 2 further shows that the members  thus 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  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 discretion in the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 9  

mode prescribed under paragraph 20-BB of the Sixth Schedule.    Thus,  these provisions would show that as regards the nomination of four  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 the Governor, but he shall  exercise the same as envisaged under the Constitutional provisions in a  democratic form of Government which is  explicitly made clear by various  provisions of the Constitution, especially Article 163, which is to the  following effect :

"163. Council of Ministers to aid and advise Governor \026 (1)  There shall be a Council of Ministers with the Chief Minister as  the head to aid and advise the Governor in the exercise of his  functions, except in so far as he is by or under this Constitution  required to exercise his functions or any of them in his  discretion.

(2) If any question arises whether any matter is or is not a  matter as respects which the Governor is by or under this  Constitution required to act in his discretion, the decision of the  Governor in his discretion shall be final, and the validity of  anything done by the Governor shall not be called in question on  the ground that he ought or ought not to have acted in his  discretion.

(3) The question whether any, and if so what, advice was  tendered by Ministers to the Governor shall not be inquired into  in any court."

       There are several powers and duties for the Governor and some of  these powers are to be exercised in his discretion and some other powers  are to be exercised by him with the aid and advice of the Council of  Ministers.  The executive powers of the State are vested in the Governor  under Article 154 (1).   Article 163(1) states that there shall be a Council of  Ministers with the Chief Minister as the head to aid and advise the Governor  in the exercise of his functions, except in so far as he is by or under this  Constitution, required to exercise his functions or any of them in his  discretion.

       Article 163(2) states that if any question arises whether any matter is  or is not a matter as respects which the Governor is by or under this  Constitution required to act in his discretion, the decision of the Governor in  his discretion shall be final and the validity of anything done by the Governor  shall not be called in question on the ground that he ought or ought not to  have acted in his discretion.  Article 143  in the Draft Constitution became  Article 163 in the Constitution.  The draft Constitution in Article 144(6) said  that the functions of the Governor under that Article with respect to the  appointment and dismissal of Ministers shall be exercised by him in his  discretion.  This draft article was omitted when it became Article 164 in the  Constitution.  There are certain powers and functions of the Governor which  speak of the special responsibilities of the Governor.  These articles are  371A(1)(b), 371A(1)(d), 371A(2)(b) and 371A (2)(f).  Similarly, there are  certain provisions  in the Sixth Schedule, where the words "in his discretion"  are used in relation to certain powers to be exercised by the Governor.

       Our Constitution envisages the Parliamentary or Cabinet system of  Government of the British model both for the Union and the States.  Under  the Cabinet system of Government as embodied in our Constitution the  Governor is the constitutional or formal head of the State and he exercises  all his powers and functions conferred on him  by or under the Constitution  on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers save in spheres where the  Governor is required by or under the Constitution to exercise his functions in  his discretion.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 9  

       The executive power also partakes the legislative or certain judicial  actions.  Wherever the Constitution requires the satisfaction of the Governor  for the exercise of any power or function, the satisfaction required by the  Constitution is not personal satisfaction of the Governor but the satisfaction  in the constitutional sense under the Cabinet system of Government.  The  Governor exercises functions conferred on him by or under the Constitution  with the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers and he is competent to  make rules for convenient transaction of the business of the Government of  the State, by allocation of business among the Ministers, under Article  166(3) of the Constitution.  It is a fundamental principle of English  Constitutional Law that Ministers must accept responsibility for every  executive act.  It may also be noticed that in regard to the executive action  taken in the name of the Governor, he cannot be sued for any executive  action of the State and Article 300 specifically states that Government of a  State may sue or be sued in the name of the State subject to the restriction  placed therein.  This Court has consistently taken the view that the powers  of the President and the powers of the Governor are similar to the powers of  the Crown under the British Parliamentary system.  We followed this  principle in Ram Jawaya Kapur Vs. State of Punjab AIR 1955 SC 549, A.  Sanjeevi Naidu Vs. State of Madras (1970) 3 SCR 505, 511 and U.N.R.  Rao Vs. Indira Gandhi (1971) 2 SCC 63.   

       A discordant note was struck in Sardari Lal Vs. Union of India  (1971) 3 SCR 461 wherein this Court held that the functions of the President  under Article 311(2) of the Constitution cannot be delegated to anyone else  in the case of a civil servant of the Union and the President has to be  satisfied personally that in the interest of the security of the State it is not  expedient to hold an inquiry prescribed under Article 311(2).

       In Shamsher Singh Vs. State of Punjab (1974) 2 SCC 831, it was  held that the decisions in Sardari Lal’s case did not lay down correct  principles of law as such decision was contrary to A. Sanjeevi Naidu’s case  and U.N.R. Rao’s case and those decisions were neither referred to nor  considered in Sardari Lal’s case.     In Shamsher Singh’s case (supra), the  powers of the Governor were considered in detail.

The scope and ambit of the powers of the Governor came up for  consideration before a Seven Judge Bench in  Shamsher Singh vs. State  of Punjab & Anr.  (1974) 2 SCC 831.   There, the two appellants were the  members of the Subordinate Judicial Service in Punjab.   On the  recommendations of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana, the services of the  two appellant-Judicial Officers were terminated with immediate effect.   The  appellants contended that the Governor as Constitutional or formal head of  the State can exercise powers and functions of appointment and remove the  members of Judicial Service only personally whereas the State contended  that the Governor exercises powers of appointment and removal conferred  on him by or under the Constitution,  like executive powers of the State or  Government,  only on the aid and advice of his Council of Ministers and not  personally.   Speaking for the majority, Ray, C.J. held:

"Our Constitution embodies generally the Parliamentary or  Cabinet system of Government of the British model both for the  Union and the States.   Under this system, the President is the  constitutional or formal head of the Union and he exercises his  powers and functions conferred on him by or under the  Constitution on the aid and advice of his Council of Ministers.    Article 103 is an exception to the aid and advice of the Council  of Ministers because it specifically provides that the President  acts only according to the opinion of the Election Commission.     This is when any question arises as to whether a Member of  either House of Parliament has become subject to any of the  disqualifications mentioned in clause (1) of Article 102.

Under the Cabinet system of Government as embodied in our  Constitution the Governor is the constitutional or formal head of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 9  

the State and he exercises all his powers and functions  conferred on him by or under the Constitution on the aid and  advice of his Council of Ministers, save in spheres where the  Governor is required by or under the Constitution to exercise his  functions in his discretion."

In the instant case, the members held office during the pleasure of  the Governor and the Council of Ministers advised the Governor to terminate  the membership of these appellants and all relevant records were placed  before the Governor.   The relevant papers show that the contents of all  the  relevant files were brought to the knowledge of the Governor and he  accepted the advice of his Council of Ministers.   As the Governor was not  left with any discretionary power, he was bound by the advice given by the  Council of Ministers.   The termination of the members from Council has  rightly been upheld by the High Court.

The counsel for the appellants further contended that the Sixth  Schedule to the Constitution is a  "Constitution within the constitution" and  that the Governor of Mizoram is not bound by the aid and advice of the  Council of Ministers and the power of the Governor of Mizoram is   independent of the rest of the Constitution itself.   This plea was raised on  the basis of the opinion expressed by  M. Hidayatullah, former Chief  Justice of India, as he then was, in his third Anundoram Barooah Law  Lectures at Gauhati in 1978.   Hidayatullah, CJ, traced the history of the  formation of  Mizoram State and also inclusion of the Sixth Schedule  to the  Constitution.   In his lecture, it was stated :

"\005\005..It is not compulsory for the Governor to consult the  Council of Ministers.  He may do so, but he is not bound to do  so,  nor is he bound to accept their advice.   The entire history  of  these areas,  the thought that went  into the enactment of  the Sixth Schedule as a Constitution independent of the rest of  the Constitution clearly establishes this."

Based on this, it was argued that the tribal areas are to be  administered as per the provisions of the Sixth Schedule only.    This  contention of the appellants cannot be accepted for various reasons.     The  Sixth Schedule to the Constitution is a part of the Constitution and cannot be  interpreted by  forgetting  the other provisions  in the Constitution.    It is  impossible to visualize complete segregation of the Sixth Schedule from the  rest of the Constitution.   As regards the inclusion of the Sixth Schedule to  the Constitution, there is a legislative history, but that by itself is not  sufficient to hold that the Sixth Schedule is a "Constitution within the  Constitution."    This aspect of the matter  came up for consideration in  Edwingson Bareh vs. State of Assam & Ors.  (infra).  The majority in  that decision repelled this contention.   This was a case in which the  appellants challenged the Notification of the Governor of Assam to create an  autonomous district to be called Jowai district excluding it from the United  Khasi-Jaintia Hills District with effect from 1.12.1964.  A Commission was  appointed by the Governor and the Commission went into the question and  submitted a report and it was considered by the Council of Ministers and it  decided to accept the report of the Commission.  A memorandum was drawn  up and the whole file was placed before the Governor, who after reading the  file recorded "Seen, thanks".  The Assembly thereafter passed a resolution  approving the proposal of the Government and a Notification creating new  district was issued.  This Notification was challenged in that case.   The  appellants contended that the Governor acted outside his authority.   The  plea of the appellants was rejected and it was held that the Governor  exercised his powers and acted on the advice of his Council of Ministers and  the affidavit filed by the respondents showed that the matter was considered  by the Council of Ministers and the proceedings were placed before the  Governor who read the proceedings and expressed his concurrence with  words "Seen, thanks",  and the Court held that this was in accordance with

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 9  

the conditions prescribed by  para 14(2) of the Sixth Schedule.   Therefore,  the contention that the  Governor was not bound by the aid and advice of  the Council of Ministers is only to be rejected.

The termination of the membership of four members from the Council  was also challenged on the ground that these members were not given any  notice and they were not heard and that there was a violation of the  principles of natural justice.    It is pertinent to note that these members  held their office at the pleasure of the Governor.

Ordinarily, the "pleasure" doctrine comes into play when the  appointment of a Crown servant is terminated.    Lord  Diplock  in Chelliah  Kodeeswaran vs.  Attorney General of Ceylon 1970 AC 1111, at 1118  (PC) stated the English law as follows :

"It is now well established in British Constitutional theory, at  any rate as it has developed since the eighteenth century, that  any appointment as a Crown servant, however subordinate, is  terminable at will unless it is expressly otherwise provided by  legislation. "

 The Constitutional protection and privileges available under Article  311 to a person who holds a civil post under the Union or States are not  applicable to a member of a Council who is nominated by the Governor.

This  Court  in Dr. Rash Lal Yadav vs. State of Bihar & Ors. (1994)  5 SCC 267 held that the principles of natural justice are not applicable in the  absence of express words.   That was a case where the removal from the  Chairmanship of Bihar Schools Board was challenged.   Relying on an earlier  decision in A.K. Kraipak vs. Union of India (1969) 2 SCC 262, it was held  that if the statute,  expressly or by necessary implication omits the  application of the rule of natural justice, the statute will not be invalidated   for this omission on the ground of arbitrariness.

Therefore, the contention of the appellants that these members of the  Council were not heard before their nomination/appointment was terminated  and hence illegal, cannot be accepted, as they held their office at the  pleasure of the Governor.

The next point that was raised for consideration is whether the  Notification dated 6.12.2001 nominating four members to the Council by  virtue of the powers under sub paragraph (1) of Paragraph 2 was  constitutionally legal.   As already noticed, the Governor of Mizoram has  been given discretionary powers to nominate four members to the Council.    Paragraph 20BB inserted in the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution by Act 67  of 1988 expressly gives this power.    Paragraph 20BB also says that the  Governor shall consult the Council of Ministers and if he thinks it necessary,  the District Council or the Regional Council concerned, and take such action  as he considers necessary in his discretion.   Therefore, it is clear that the  Governor shall consult the Council of Ministers, but the consultation with the  District Council or the Regional Council is optional.   The learned Single  Judge found fault with the procedure adopted by the Government of  Mizoram in bringing the matter to the notice of the Governor to nominate  the four members to MADC.

The counsel for the appellants contended that in the case of  nomination of four members, the Governor accepted the advice of his  Council of  Ministers and he did not exercise the discretionary powers vested  in him under Para 20BB of the Sixth Schedule.    This contention was raised  on the basis that the initiation for issuing the Notification dated 6.12.2001  was from the Council of Ministers and the Governor acted upon the advice of  the Council of Ministers.     We do not find any force in this contention.     Under the provisions of Paragraph 20BB, the Governor shall consult the  Council of Ministers.   Merely because of the fact that the Governor made

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 9  

consultation with the Council of Ministers for nominating four members,  it  cannot be assumed that Governor failed to exercise the discretionary  powers.   The Governor could have even consulted the District Council or the  Regional Council in this regard.   There is nothing to show that the Governor  did not exercise his discretionary powers independently.   Moreover, as  noted above, Article 163(2) of the Constitution expressly prohibits  challenging the validity of the exercise of such discretionary power.     

The counsel also contended that Paragraph  20-BB  to the Sixth  Schedule was inserted by the Constitution (Amendment) Act, 1988 (Act 67  of 1988) with the object of giving more autonomous powers to  administrators of tribal areas  and that is why the Governor was given more  discretionary powers and that is evident from the object and reasons given  in the Constitution (Amendment) Act, 1988 and it was submitted that the  Governor should have exercised the powers independently and any advice or  instruction on the part of the  Council is objectionable and would make the  notification illegal.

The relevant portion of  the  objects  and reasons of Act 67 of 1988 is  as follows:-

"1. \005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005 2.     Over a period of time, the minority tribals of Mizoram  covered under the Sixth Schedule have come to feel that their  autonomy under the Sixth Schedule will be more meaningful and  they can achieve speedier progress if there is less overall control of  the State Government over them in matters like approval of the  rules made by the District Councils, nomination of their members,  appointment of Commission to inquire into their administration,  their dissolution, etc.  They have, therefore, represented that the  Governor should exercise powers in his discretion in these matters.   In the Memorandum of Settlement on Mizoram, there is a  provision that the rights and privileges of the minorities in Mizoram  as envisaged in the Constitution shall continue to be preserved and  protected.  Similarly, in the Memorandum of Settlement on  Tripura, there is a commitment to the protection of tribal interests.

3.   In pursuance to the Memoranda and to meet the aspirations of  the minority tribals in Mizoram and Tripura it has been provided  that the Governor shall act in his discretion in the discharge of  certain of his functions.  Opportunity has been availed of to bring  the language of the provisions relating to the application of the  Acts of Parliament and of the State Legislatures in line with the  language used in the corresponding provisions in relation to the  State of Assam.  The Bill also provides for a time limit in making  over the share of royalties to the District Councils.

        4.   The Bill seeks to achieve the aforesaid objects."

Relying on the object and reasons of the Amendment Act, the counsel  for the appellant contended that the Governor had been given discretionary  power to nominate the members to the Council and the facts disclosed that   he nominated members with the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers  and this was not in accordance with the provisions of Paragraph 20BB and  the autonomy envisaged under the provisions of the Sixth Schedule is not  given its true and meaningful importance.    The contention of the appellants  is that by inserting Paragraph 20-BB to the Sixth Schedule Governor is given  more discretionary powers to protect the autonomy of the tribal areas and if  Governor acts on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers and does not  act independently, the purpose of the legislation is not achieved.   Except   for the fact that the file for nominating new members initiated from the  Council of Ministers, there is nothing  on record to show that the Governor  failed to exercise the discretionary power vested in him.      The Governor  exercised his discretion after making proper consultations, as envisaged  under Paragraph 20BB of the Sixth Schedule and the nomination of the four

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 9  

members had been validly made.

In the result,  we hold that the Governor was bound by the aid and  advice of the Council of Ministers and  the termination of the four 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 four members to the Council by order  dated 6.12.2001 was  legal and the Governor acted by virtue of the  discretionary power vested in him.   The Governor was  justified in making  consultation with the Council of Ministers and the  Governor making such  incidental consultation with the Council of Ministers did not in any way affect  his discretionary power.  No other authority interfered with the independent  exercise of the Governor’s discretion in nominating the four members to the  MADC and the Notification issued by the Governor on 6.12.2001 was validly  made and the decision of the Division Bench of Gauhati High Court does not  call for any interference.  

   The appeals are without any merit and are dismissed accordingly.     There will be no order as to costs.