Meghalaya High Court
Shri. Andrew A. Jyrwa vs The Khasi Hills Autonomous District on 23 January, 2025
Author: W. Diengdoh
Bench: W. Diengdoh
2025:MLHC:3
Serial No. 01
Regular List
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG
MC[WP(C)] No. 1 of 2025 in
WP(C) No. 5 of 2025
Date of Decision: 23.01.2025
Laitumkhrah Dorbar Shnong Pyllun
Represented by
1. Shri. Andrew A. Jyrwa
2. Shri. P. Sengborlang Nongkynrih
3. Shri. Theory D. Myrboh
All are Headmen of Laitumkhrah Dorbar
Shnong Pyllun,
East Khasi Hills District,
Meghalaya .....Petitioners
- Vs-
1. The Khasi Hills Autonomous District
Council, Shillong represented through its
Secretary.
2. The Executive Committee, I/C, Elaka,
Khasi Hills Autonomous District Council,
Shillong.
3. The Secretary/Deputy Secretary/Under
Secretary to the Executive Committee,
Khasi Hills Autonomous District Council,
Shillong.
4. The Syiem of Mylliem,
Mylliem Syiemship,
1
2025:MLHC:3
Mawkhar, Shillong,
East Khasi Hills District.
5. Shri. A.A. Lamare,
Nongrimbah Locality,
Laitumkhrah Dorbar Shnong Pyllun,
East Khasi Hills District,
Meghalaya.
6. Shri. Victor Warjri,
Nongrimbah Locality,
Laitumkhrah Dorbar Shnong Pyllun,
East Khasi Hills District,
Meghalaya.
.......Respondents
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice W. Diengdoh, Judge
Appearance:
For the Petitioner/Appellant(s) : Mr. K.Ch. Gautam, Adv.
Ms. G.C. Myrboh, Adv.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. V.G.K. Kynta, Sr. Adv. with
Ms. M. Kynta, Adv. for R 1-3.
i) Whether approved for reporting in Yes/No
Law journals etc.:
ii) Whether approved for publication
in press: Yes/No
JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)
1. Heard Mr. K.Ch. Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioners.
2
2025:MLHC:3
2. As far as the respondents are concerned, the respondent Nos.
1-3 are present in Court through their Special Counsel, Mr. V.G.K. Kynta,
learned Sr. counsel assisted by Ms. M. Kynta, learned counsel.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners in his submission has
stated that the petitioners are the Headmen of Laitumkhrah Dorbar
Shnong Pyllun, East Khasi Hills District, Meghalaya, which Dorbar
manages the affairs of about 13(thirteen) localities (Dong). However, in
course of time, some of the members of one of the localities had expressed
their desire for creation of a separate village apart from the Laitumkhrah
village. Upon such desire, the respondent No. 4 i.e. the Syiem of Mylliem,
Mylliem Syiemship, Mawkhar, Shillong, East Khasi Hills District, had
issued a communication dated 5th August, 2024, calling upon the members
of the locality i.e. Nongrimbah to be heard on 10th August, 2024 as far as
the prayer or demand for a separate village is concerned.
4. The petitioners being aggrieved by such communication, had
approached the respondents/KHADC by way of a Political Appeal, the
same being registered as Political Appeal No. 2 of 2024, the respondents
therein being the respondent No. 4 herein as well as the respondent Nos. 5
& 6. The Political Appeal is sub-judice and have not yet been disposed of,
3
2025:MLHC:3
however, the said letter dated 05.08.2024 has been stayed vide order dated
09.08.2024.
5. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that the
petitioners are taken by surprise on coming to know of a communication
dated 15th January, 2025 issued by the Deputy Secretary to the Executive
Committee, Khasi Hills Autonomous District Council, Shillong to the
Syiem of Mylliem, Mylliem Syiemship, the respondent No. 4 herein,
directing him to convene a public hearing on the 20th January, 2025 of
Nongrimbah locality regarding the request to uplift Nongrimbah locality
to Nongrimbah village. On request being made, the date of hearing was
postponed and to be held on 23rd January, 2025 at 10:00 a.m.
6. The petitioners being aggrieved by the said communication
dated 15th January, 2025 as well as that of 17 th January, 2025, which is the
communication of the Syiem of Mylliem/respondent No. 4 for holding of
such public hearing, have now approach this Court with a prayer for
quashing and setting aside of the said impugned orders, and in the
meantime, for stay of the operation of such orders.
7. Mr. V.G.K. Kynta, learned Special Counsel/Sr. counsel for the
respondent Nos. 1-3/KHADC responding to the submission of the learned
4
2025:MLHC:3
counsel for the petitioners, has submitted that due procedure has been
followed in accordance with the provision of Section 3 of the Khasi Hills
Autonomous District (Administration of Elaka) Act, 1991. However, he
submits that pursuant to the filing of the said Political Appeal and the
proceedings thereof, it is the desire of the KHADC to know the mind and
will of the people of the said locality i.e. Nongrimbah as far as the prayer
for such upliftment of the said locality into a village is concerned. The
said process according to the learned Sr. counsel is a part and parcel of the
proceedings in the Political Appeal. The learned Sr. counsel has also
pointed out that this petition has been filed belatedly, inasmuch as, one of
the prayers of the petitioners is for stay of the public hearing, which has
been slated to be held today at 10:00 a.m, and as such, presumably, the
proceedings has already started, and is due to be completed. Hence, the
prayer of the petitioners in this regard has become infructuous. Be that as
it may, the learned Sr. counsel would again submit that it is open to the
petitioners to approach this Court or any other authority for that matter, if
any report is filed as far as the proceedings of the said public hearing is
concerned. Therefore, this petition is not maintainable at this point of
time, further submits the learned Sr. counsel.
5
2025:MLHC:3
8. This Court has duly considered the submission made by the
learned counsel for the respective parties, and is made to understand that
the grievance of the petitioners at this point of time is only with regard to
the conduct of the public hearing as far as the cause of the members of the
Nongrimbah locality is concerned. It is a fact that the impugned orders
have already been carried out as far as holding of the public hearing is
concerned. However, this Court is also of the opinion that the KHADC
has bypass due procedure, inasmuch, as when the said Political Appeal is
still under consideration, the impugned orders ought not to have been
passed, which effectively would amount to the same cause of action as
was espoused by the petitioners in the said Political Appeal. At this point
of time, the legality or propriety of the impugned orders passed by the
concerned respondent is required to be decided, for which this Court
would call upon the parties to be heard.
9. On consideration of the prayer made for stay of the said
hearing as pointed out, this Court would not be in a position to concede to
the prayer of the petitioners at this point of time, since by this time, the
proceeding may well have been concluded. However, as a consequent of
such public hearing, if any report is filed or deemed to have been filed by
6
2025:MLHC:3
the concerned authority, such report would not be taken into account till
disposal of the writ petition. In the meantime, the respondents/KHADC is
directed to dispose of the Political Appeal expeditiously.
10. In view thereof, this Misc. Case stands disposed of.
Judge
Signature Not Verified 7
Digitally signed by
DARIKORDOR NARY
Date: 2025.01.23 15:38:15 IST
[ad_1]
Source link