Page No.# 1/8 GAHC030007362024 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/135/2024 Gospel Lalruatfela and Anr. Near Tourist Lodge, Thenzawl, Serchhip District VERSUS The State of Mizoram r/b the Secretary to Govt. of Mizoram, Home Dept. and 35 Ors. Aizawl2:The Deputy Commissioner/District Magistrate Serchhip District 3:The Superintendent of Police Serchhip District 4:The Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil) 5:Joint YMA Committee R/b its President Lalmuanpuia 6:The Secretary Joint YMA Committee 7:Mizoram Upa Pawl R/b its President ZD. Dengkunga 8:The Secretary Mizoram Upa Pawl 9:Joint MHIP R/b its President Biaknghinglovi Page No.# 2/8 10:The Secretary Joint MHIP 11:Bazar Defence Force R/b its Chairman K. Zoliana 12:The Secretary Bazar Defence Force 13:Vengthar Defence Force R/b its Chairman Vanlalsiama 14:The Secretary Vengthar Defence Force 15:Kanan Veng Chhantu Pawl R/b its Chairman Raldoliana 16:The Secretary Kanan Veng Chhantu Paw Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. T Lalnunsiama Advocate for the Respondent : Addl. AG/GA, Mizoram ORDER B E F O R E HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NELSON SAILO 27.03.2025 Heard Mr. T. Lalnunsiama, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms. Lalnunhlui, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents. At the outset, the learned Govt. Advocate submits that the Deputy Commissioner, Serchhip has filed an affidavit this morning and copy of the same has been served to the Page No.# 3/8 learned counsel for the petitioners. Although the affidavit said to have been filed this morning has not been connected to the record, the learned Govt. Advocate has produced a copy of the same for perusal of the Court. [2.] By filing this writ petition, the petitioners have sought for issuance of appropriate direction to the respondents since their house has been kept under lock and key by the local Non-Governmental Organizations since 21.11.2024 on the allegation that the petitioners are dealing with drugs. Therefore, the Non- Governmental Organizations in their joint meeting made a resolution that the petitioners should leave Thenzawl town by 20.11.2024 and has kept their house under lock and key. Aggrieved with the same, the petitioners have filed the instant writ petition. [3.] On 10.02.2025, this Court had directed the learned Govt. Advocate to obtain instructions as to why the house of the petitioners has not been opened and directed posting of the matter on 13.02.2025. On 13.02.2025, the learned Govt. Advocate produced a letter dated 12.02.2025 issued by the SDM, Thenzawl Sub-Division which is to the effect that the house of the petitioners has been opened. Having regard to the said communication, this Court had directed the learned Govt. Advocate to obtain instructions and to file an affidavit with regard to the concern of the petitioners for their safety while moving into Page No.# 4/8 the house. Further, direction was made to obtain instructions as regards to the steps taken by the District Administration against the persons who locked the petitioners house and the mechanism put to ensure their safety. This Court had also asked the Govt. Advocate to obtain instructions as to whether the concerned authorities will be able to guarantee the safety of the petitioners once they return to their house. Such instructions has been directed to be filed by way of an affidavit. [4.] As already stated, the affidavit has been filed this morning. A perusal of the same would go to show that the SDM, Thenzawl Sub-Division convened a meeting with the NGOs on 03.03.2025 wherein, a statement was issued by the Joint NGOs that they never intended to cause any harm to the petitioners at any point of time nor did they threatened them. It was only due to the fact that they were dealing with illicit drugs that the NGOs had asked them to leave the town. However, if the petitioners are acquitted by the Court concerned, they will have no reprimanding discourse nor insinuation of harm towards their well being. [5.] Pursuant to the above meeting and joint statement, the Deputy Commissioner, Serchhip District informed all the NGOs within Thenzawl regarding the filing of the instant writ petition with a request not to cause any harm and inconvenience to the petitioners. A copy of the said communication Page No.# 5/8 was also given to the Superintendent of Police, Serchhip for information and to give protection as may be necessary. Further, SDO (Civil), Thenzawl has also been given a copy of the communication for information and necessary action. [6.] At this stage, it is submitted at the bar that both the petitioners are currently in custody whereas their four (4) out of five (5) children are living with their relatives except for the youngest one, being an infant. As was stated earlier, vide communication dated 12.02.2025, the SDM, Thenzawl Sub-Division had informed the Deputy Commissioner, Serchhip District about the action taken report that the house of the petitioners was unlocked by the SDM, Thenzawl with the Officer-in-Charge, Thenzawl Police Station in the presence of all the representatives of the NGOs within Thenzawl and the relatives of the petitioner No. 1. Therefore, having due regard to the unlocking of the house of the petitioners and the joint statement made by the NGOs of Thenzawl and the arrangement made by the Deputy Commissioner, Serchhip District for the safety and security of the petitioners, the instant writ petition is found to be infructuous. [7.] This Court on early occasion in WP(C) No. 68/2004 (Sh. Saithanpuia Vs. State of Mizoram and 7 Ors.) had dealt with a similar matter wherein, the petitioner therein was made to sign an agreement by the Joint Action Page No.# 6/8 Committee, Lungsum village to leave the village for a period of two (2) years. This Court vide Order dated 13.09.2024 while disposing of the writ petition held that the agreement concerned to leave the village for two (2) years by no means can be considered to be signed by the petitioner at his own free will. When there is unequal bargaining power, the agreement cannot be said to be a valid agreement in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Balmer Lawrie & Company Vs. Parthasarathi Sen Roy reported in (2013) 8 SCC 345. [8.] This Court also took note of the fact that the Apex Court in Takseen S. Poonawalla Vs. Union of India, reported in (2018) 9 SCC 501 held that law does not empower anyone to authorize himself to behave as a protector of law and impose punishment as per his choice and fancy. No one is entitled to take the law into his own hands and annihilate anything that the law protects. When the vigilantes involve themselves in lynching or any kind of brutality, they, in fact, put the requisite accountability of a citizen to law on the ventilator. That cannot be countenanced. Such core groups cannot be allowed to act as they please. They cannot be permitted to indulge in freezing the peace of life on the basis of their contrived notions. They are no one to punish a person by ascribing any justification. [9.] The Supreme Court further stated that self styled vigilantes have no role in taking the law into their own hands and their only right is to inform the crime, if Page No.# 7/8 any, to the law enforcing agency. It is the duty of the law enforcement agency and the prosecutors to bring the accused persons before the law adjudicating authorities. In the scheme of things, external forces like vigilantes and extra constitutional authorities cannot assume the role of protectors and once they pave the said path, they associate themselves with criminality and bring themselves in the category of criminals. It is imperative for them to remember that they are subservient to the law and cannot be guided by notions or emotions or sentiments or, for that matter, faith. Thus, the Supreme Court further held that every citizen has to abide by the law and the law never confers the power on a citizen to become the law unto himself or take the law into his hands. [10.] Further reference was made to the case of Union of India VS. Tulsiram Patel, reported in 1985 (3) SCC 398 wherein, the Supreme Court held that the source of power must exist for exercise of the same. In the instant case also, all the NGOs do not have such source of power to make rules and penalties and they themselves are non-juristic person. The respondent Nos. 5 to 36 have to act within the four corners of the Constitution and the laws made thereunder and cannot act on their own sweet will, in violation of the prevailing laws. [11.] In view of above, the writ petition having found to become infructuous, the same is closed with a direction to the respondents to ensure that the Page No.# 8/8 petitioners are allowed to live peacefully in the town and are not disturbed in violation of Constitution and the prevailing laws of the State. As regards the allegation made against the petitioners for having dealt with illicit drugs, the law would take its own course in terms of the prescribed procedure and enactment. JUDGE Comparing Assistant