Shillong, Aug. 23: Meghalaya High Court today disposed of a PIL on dual posts but it opened doors for anyone to challenge an order of Meghalaya governor, V. Shanmuganathan, who had ruled that a member of the state Assembly who also held a post as member of an autonomous district council would be not liable for disqualification.

The PIL was disposed of after the final hearing taken up here today in the court's full bench, which comprised Chief Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, Justice Sudip Ranjan Sen and Justice Ved Prakash Vaish.

The petitioner, Agnes Kharshiing, had filed the PIL in the high court on October 30, 2014. She sought the disqualification of eight Assembly members who became members of the autonomous district councils, under rule 17 (1) (a) of the Assam and Meghalaya Autonomous Districts (Constitution of District Councils) rules, 1951.

Before filing the PIL, Kharshiing had petitioned then governor K.K. Paul on July 18, 2014, appealing that such representatives who hold the post of MLAs and MDCs should be disqualified from enjoying an office of profit.

Since October 2014 till today, the court had had numerous hearings and passed various orders. One of the most significant orders passed by the court was on October 9 last year, where it left to the "wisdom" of the Meghalaya governor to disqualify the legislators who are also members of district councils.

After asking the Election Commission, Shanmuganathan on May 31 this year declared that the provisions of disqualification would not attract Mawsynram MLA and MDC P.N. Syiem, who is also the chief executive member of the Khasi Hills Autonomous District Council (KHADC).

Shanmuganathan issued an order stating that Syiem had not attracted disqualification under Article 191 (1) (a) of the Constitution.

Article 191 (1) (a) of the Constitution says a person shall be disqualified for being chosen as, and for being, a member of the Legislative Assembly or Legislative Council of a state if he holds any office of profit under the government of India or the government of any state specified in the First Schedule, other than an office declared by the legislature of the state by law not to disqualify its holder.

The three autonomous district councils in Meghalaya - KHADC, Jaintia Hills Autonomous District Council (JHADC) and Garo Hills Autonomous District Council (GHADC) - have been created under the Sixth Schedule.

Apart from Syiem, seven MLAs had also successfully contested the elections to the KHADC and JHADC in February 2014.

These include Assembly deputy Speaker Sanbor Shullai, Meghalaya district council affairs minister H.D.R. Lyngdoh Nongkrem MLA Ardent Miller Basaiawmoit, Mairang MLA Metbah Lyngdoh, Mawthadraishan MLA, Brolding H. Nongsiej and Rambrai-Jyrngam MLA P.K. Pangniang (all members of the KHADC) while Amlarem MLA Stephanson Mukhim was elected as a member of the JHADC.

While the PIL was pending in the court, the Meghalaya government came out with the Prevention of Disqualification (Member of Legislative Assembly Meghalaya) Amendment Bill, 2015, which barred legislators from simultaneously holding the post of members of the autonomous district councils.

The Assembly passed the bill on September 24 last year during its autumn session, stipulating that members of the Assembly can no longer be prevented from disqualification if they are also members of district councils. The amended act came into force on October 1, though the governor gave his consent only on October 8 last year.

After the amendment bill was passed, the seven MLAs resigned as members of the district councils. Syiem remained the lone fighter; he did not resign from the post of MDC.

In November last year, the seven seats in district councils were declared vacant through a notification issued by the governor.

The ruling of the governor, which came in favour of Syiem, as well as today's decision of the court to dispose off the PIL, has only boosted the position of Syiem, who has always been critical of the state government for bringing the amendment act last year.

A senior advocate and legal counsel for Syiem, V.G. K. Kynta, told reporters that the court has disposed off the PIL.

"From the very beginning our stand is that the post of MDC is not an office of profit under Article 191 (1) (a) of the Constitution. The governor has given his ruling in this regard and his decision is final," Kynta said.

However the counsel for the petitioner, N. Syngkon, told reporters that fresh petition would be filed to challenge the order passed by the governor on May 31 this year.

"In our PIL, we have included the names of eight MLAs who should be disqualified for holding two posts, but only the name of P.N. Syiem was mentioned in the order of the governor. Though the court has disposed of the petition, it has left open for anyone to challenge the order of the governor," Syngkon said.

KHADC chief executive member, P.N. Syiem today said the Act passed by the Meghalaya Assembly to disallow its members from becoming members of the Autonomous District Councils (ADCs) would not stand since the post of MDC is not an office of profit.

"It does not matter whether you have an Act that allows MLAs to become MDCs or you have an act that bars MLAs from becoming MDCs. Such an act is of no relevance as it very clear that the post of MDC is not an office of profit according to Article 191 (1) (a) of the Constitution," Syiem told reporters today.

According to Syiem, after the Mukul Sangma-led government came up with an amendment bill last year to bar the eight MLAs from being the members of ADCs, he had stood firm that the state government was wrongly advised, and the Act would not work.

Syiem said he did not resign from the post of MDC because he respected the mandate of the people who had elected him as MLA and MDC, adding that the amendment act was brought by the government with an "ulterior motive".

"The declaration of the governor that the post of MDC is not an office of profit is a setback to the state government. I am happy that the court has disposed of the PIL and thank the legal counsels and well-wishers have been supporting me," Syiem said.

According to Kynta, the MLAs can still contest the elections to the district councils.

"District councils have been created under the Sixth Schedule. Therefore, no law can bar the MLAs or MDCs to contest both Assembly and district council elections until and unless the Sixth Schedule is amended by Parliament," Kynta said.