Meghalaya High Court
Smti. Kangse R. Marak vs The Garo Hills Autonomous District … on 23 June, 2025
Author: H.S.Thangkhiew
Bench: H.S.Thangkhiew
2025:MLHC:530
Serial No.09
Regular List
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG
MC[WP(C)]. No. 130 of 2025 in
WP(C). No. 152 of 2025
Date of Decision: 23.06.2025
1. Smti. Kangse R. Marak.
2. Smti. Jalse R. Marak.
...Applicants
-Versus-
1. The Garo Hills Autonomous District Council (GHADC),
Represented by its Secretary, Executive
Committee, Tura, West Garo Hills District,
Meghalaya.
2. The Chief Executive Member,
Garo Hills Autonomous District Council (GHADC),
Tura, West Garo Hills District, Meghalaya.
3. The Deputy CEM/Executive Member,
I/C Land & revenue,
Garo Hills Autonomous District Council (GHADC),
Tura, West Garo Hills District, Meghalaya.
4. Smti. Tharsita R. Marak,
D/o (L) Dewellingson G. Momin,
R/o Wakso, North Garo Hills District,
Meghalaya.
...Opposite Parties
1
2025:MLHC:530
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice H.S.Thangkhiew, Judge
Appearance:
For the Petitioner/Applicant(s) : Mr. A.G.Momin, Adv.
Ms. L.D.Sangma, Adv.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. S.Dey, SC for R 1-3.
Mr. P.T.Sangma, Adv. for R 4.
i) Whether approved for reporting in Yes/No
Law journals etc:
ii) Whether approved for publication Yes/No
in press:
JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)
1. By the instant misc. application, the respondents No. 4 & 5 in WP(C).
No. 152 of 2025, as applicants are before this Court assailing an Order No.
62 /GHADC/ Land & Revenue/ 2025, dated 30-05-2025, passed by the
Deputy Chief Executive Member, Land & Revenue, GHADC, whereby
permission has been granted to remove some quantity of bamboo felled by
Maharis of Wakso A’khing as the same may be damaged if not transported
urgently.
2. Mr. A.G.Momin, learned counsel for the applicants submits that
inspite of the pendency of the matter before this Court, the respondents are
2
2025:MLHC:530
seeking to extract and transport the bamboo. As such, he prays that the order
allowing the same be interfered with.
3. Mr. S.Dey, learned SC for the GHADC respondents No. 1-3 and Mr.
P.T.Sangma, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4, have voiced their
objections and submitted that the felling of bamboo is done by the
recognised Nokma i.e. the respondent in the writ petition and there is no
illegality involved. Further, the forest not being under the jurisdiction of the
Forest Department, or a Council Forest or a Mahari Forest, as such,
permission was granted. They further submitted that this misc. application
is incompetent and the writ petitioner should have approached the Chief
Executive Member.
4. To this, Mr. A.G.Momin, learned counsel for the applicants submits
that as the records are pending before this Court, the Chief Executive
Member is not in a position to pass any effective orders.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties. It is correct that the order has
been passed by the Deputy Chief Executive Member and any relief that the
applicants claim can be sought before the CEM. However, as it is submitted
that the records are before this Court, as such, they are permitted to place
reliance on the contents of the writ petition, along with the orders passed
3
2025:MLHC:530
therein before the Chief Executive Member. The misc. case is accordingly
not entertained by this Court at this stage.
6. Misc. case stands disposed of.
Judge
Signature Not Verified 4
Digitally signed by
SAMANTHA ANNA LIYA
RYNJAH
Date: 2025.06.23 04:28:06 IST