Page No.# 1/3 GAHC030007662026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/152/2026 R. Lalfakzuala Member, Sinlung Hills Council, 10-Tinghmun Constituency, Resident of Sakawrdai, Aizawl District, Mizoram - 796111 VERSUS The State of Mizoram and 3 Ors. R/b the Secretary, District Council and Minority Affairs Department, Govt. of Mizoram, Mizoram Secretariat, Aizawl - 796001 2:The Sinlung Hills Council R/b its Secretary 3:The Deputy Chairman 4:The State Election Commissio Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Lalbiaknunga Hnamte Advocate for the Respondent : Addl. AG/GA, Mizoram for R 1 & 4 Page No.# 2/3 B E F O R E HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA ORDER 13.10.2026 Heard Mr. Lalbiaknunga Hnamte, learned counsel for the petitioner, who submits that the petitioner has been disqualified from being a member of the Chhinlung Hills Council under Section 3(1) (a) of the Chhinlung Hills Council (Procedure and Conduct of Business)Rules 2021, hereinafter referred to as the “Rules”. The petitioner’s counsel submits that the impugned Order dated 30.09.2026 disqualifying the petitioner from being amember of Chhinlung Hills Council was liable to be set aside, as the same had been made in violation of Rule 11 (7) of the Rules, inasmuch as, he was not given a personal hearing prior to the order of disqualification being issued. The petitioner’scounsel submitsthat subsequent to the filing of the present Writ Petition, the impugned order, disqualifying the petitioner from being a member of the Chhinlung Hills Council has been withdrawn and a notice had been issued to him on 06.10.2026, asking him to appear in person and make his stand with regard to the proposed action of disqualifying him from being a member of the Council. However, the petitioner could not attend the said hearing on 18.10.2026, as he had to attend a Church programme. As a result, Page No.# 3/3 another disqualification order had been issued on 09.10.2026 under Rule 3 (1) (a) of the Rules. The petitioner’s counsel submits that in view of the above development, he would like to withdraw the present Writ Petition, with liberty to file afresh Writ Petition as a new cause of action has arisen. Ms. Lalnunhlui, learned Government Advocate appears for the State. The prayer of the petitioner is allowed. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for. JUDGE Comparing Assistant