WP(C) 1534/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA Heard Mr. A.M. Mazumdar, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr. A.R. Bhuiya n, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. S.S. Dey, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.4 to 26. I have also heard Mrs. R. Chakraborty, learned Addl. Sr. Govt. Advocate, Assam. By means of this writ petition the 5(five) petitioners have challenged t he Annexure-C notification dated 21.02.2011 by which the Govt. of Assam in Welfa re for Plains Tribes and Backward Classes Department in the name of the Governor of Assam has constituted the Development Council for Manipuri. As reflected in the notification itself, such constitution is on the basis of the recommendation by the Cabinet Sub-Committee for formulation and finalization of Development Co uncil for the purpose of socio, economic, cultural, educational and ethnic devel opment of the community within the State of Assam under the provision of the Con stitution of India. In the notification 25(twenty five) members have been mentio ned so as to constitute the Development Council. It is the grievance of the petitioners that the Hailakandi district bein g the inhabitants of the second largest population of Manipuri people, there oug ht to have proportionate representation in the Development Council from the said district. According to the petitioners, there being violation of the guidelines issued under Order dated 07.01.2011 (Annexure-B), the Constitution itself is il legal. In the miscellaneous applications filed by the private respondents, the prayer made is to vacate the interim order dated 21.03.2011, by which the said n otification dated 21.02.2011 has been suspended. It is the stand of the private respondents that constitution of the Coun cil being on the basis of the recommendation of the Cabinet Sub-Committee, consi dering all the relevant aspects of the matter, the writ court would be reluctant to sit on appeal over such constitution of the Council. They have also question ed the locus of the petitioners to make challenge to the said notification. While Mr. Mazumdar, learned Sr. counsel for the petitioners has argued t hat the impugned notification dated 21.02.2011 is liable to be interfered with, the same being violative of the guidelines dated 07.01.2011. Mr. Dey, learned co unsel representing the private respondents submits that the Council being an int erim Council, there is no question of interference with the same. He further sub mits that the stand of the petitioners that there is violation of the provisions of the guidelines is misplaced. He has also placed reliance on a decision of th is Court dated 18.09.2007 passed in WP(C) Nos.1050/2007 and 2010/2007, so as to contend that the impugned notification being founded on the doctrine of pleasure and there being no illegality in the constitution of the same, the writ court w ill not sit on appeal over the sound discretion of the State Government. As per own showing of the petitioners, at least the petitioner No.1 is f rom Hailakandi district. As to what number of persons should be inducted to the Development Council district wise is not for the writ court to decide. As per th e para wise comment furnished by the State Government, the members of the Develo pment Council have been selected from various professions, social workers, organ izations, women, etc. That apart the Development Council of Manipuri Development Council being the recent creation, an interim council was required to be consti tuted, which the State Government has so constituted by the impugned notificatio n dated 21.02.2011. The 5(five) petitioners have also not shown that they are th e representatives of the 20,000 Manipuri population of the Hailakandi district. In view of the above, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned n otification dated 21.02.2011. However, the State Government would make an endeav our to do away with the interim Development Council by way of constitution of th e regular Council in due course. It is the expectation of the Court that such re gular council would be constituted as expeditiously as possible. Interim order operating in this proceeding, stands vacated. With the above directions and observations, the writ petitions stands di sposed of, without however, any order as to costs.