Meghalaya High Court
The Executive Committee Of The vs Shri. Wanphrang Syiem Nongshai on 16 April, 2025
Author: H. S. Thangkhiew
Bench: H. S. Thangkhiew
2025:MLHC:303
2025:MLHC:304
Serial No. 13
Regular List
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG
MC[WP(C)] No. 218 of 2024 with
MC[WP(C)] No. 222 of 2024
In WP(C) No. 452 of 2024 Date of Decision: 16.04.2025
The Executive Committee of the
Khasi Hills Autonomous District
Council, Shillong represented by its
Secretary Mr. D. Genesius Syiemiong,
Son of (L) Shri. Z. Iawphniaw, resident
of Nongrim Hills, Shillong, East Khasi
Hills District, Meghalaya :::Petitioner
-Vs-
Shri. Wanphrang Syiem Nongshai
Son of Kliderwell Syiem Nongshai
Resident of Mawdiangum, Ri Bhoi
District, Meghalaya :::Opposite Party
1.Lyngdoh Raid Nongkhrah
Shri. La Lyngdoh
Ri-Bhoi District, Meghalaya
2. Lyngdoh Raid Nongkharai
Shri. Moses Syngkli
Ri-Bhoi District, Meghalaya
3. Lyngdoh Raid Sohkhwai
Shri. Speshon Sylliang
Ri-Bhoi District, Meghalaya
1
2025:MLHC:303
2025:MLHC:304
4. Lyngdoh Raid Nongkyria
Shri. Phrangsngi Syngkli
Ri-Bhoi District, Meghalaya
5. Lyngdoh Raid Nongpoh
Shri. Linus Lyngdoh
Ri-Bhoi District, Meghalaya :::Applicants
-Vs-
1.Shri. Wanphrang Syiem Nongshai
Son of Kliderwell Syiem Nongshai
Resident of Mawdiangum, Ri Bhoi
District, Meghalaya
2.Khasi Hills Autonomous District Council
Shillong through its Secretary to the Executive
Committee, Khasi Hills Autonomous District
Council, Shillong
3.The Under Secretary to the Executive Committee,
Khasi Hills Autonomous District Council, Shillong
4.Shri. A. Basaiawmoit, Administrative Officer cum
Deputy Secretary to the Executive Committee, Khasi
Hills Autonomous District Council, Shillong
5.The Executive Member i/c Elaka Administration,
Khasi Hills Autonomous District Council, Shillong
6.Synjuk ki Nongsynshar Raid Nongpoh Sirdarship,
Ri Bhoi District represented by its Secretary,
Shri. S. Maring
7.Shri. S. Lyngdoh, Lyngdoh Raid Nonglyngdoh,
Nongpoh Sirdarship, Ri Bhoi District :::Respondents
2
2025:MLHC:303
2025:MLHC:304
Coram:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice H. S. Thangkhiew, Judge
Appearance:
In MC(WPC) No. 218 of 2024
For the Petitioner/Applicant(s) : Mr. S. Marpan, Adv.
For the Respondent/Opp. Party(s): Mr. M.L. Nongpiur, Adv.
Ms. T. Sutnga, Adv.
In MC(WPC) No. 222 of 2024
For the Petitioner/Applicant(s) : Mr. S. Sen, Adv.For the Respondent/Opp. Party(s): Mr. M.L. Nongpiur, Adv.
Ms. T. Sutnga, Adv. (For R 1)
Mr. S. Marpan, Adv.(For R 2&3)
i) Whether approved for reporting in Yes/No
Law journals etc.:
ii) Whether approved for publication
in press: Yes/No
Oral:
1. These 2 Misc. Applications both praying for vacation of order dated
06.12.2024, passed in WP(C) No. 452 of 2024, with regard to the
functioning of the writ petitioner as a Sordar of Nongpoh, being similar are
taken up together for consideration.
2. The applicant in MC(WPC) No. 218 of 2024, is the respondent No. 1
in the writ petition namely the Executive Committee, KHADC, represented
by its Secretary and the applicants in MC(WPC) No. 222 of 2024, are stated
3
2025:MLHC:303
2025:MLHC:304
to be 5(five) Lyngdoh of different Raids in Nongpoh Sirdarship, who claim
to be electors of the Sordar of Nongpoh.
3. In brief, the writ petitioner had approached this Court by way of
WP(C) No. 452 of 2024, assailing the impugned notification dated
03.12.2024, which had placed the writ petitioner under a second suspension.
The main ground of challenge was that the second suspension was illegal,
inasmuch as, on the same ground and complaint for which the writ
petitioner had also faced an inquiry, the respondents District Council based
on the findings of the inquiry had been pleased to re-instate him to the post
of Sordar of Nongpoh, vide order dated 04.03.2024. This Court, then by
order dated 06.12.2024, while granting an interim stay had recorded as
follows:
06.12.2024
“Heard Mr. M.L. Nongpiur, learned counsel for the petitioner.
It is noted that notice of the petition has been served on the
official respondent No. 1, on 05.12.2024, but there is no
representation on behalf of the official respondents Nos. 1 to 4.
The grievance of the writ petitioner who is stated to be the
Sirdar of Nongpoh Sirdarship is with the impugned order dated
03.12.2024, whereby he has been placed under suspension, by the
respondents Nos. 1 to 4.
It is submitted by Mr. M.L. Nongpiur, learned counsel for the
petitioner that the suspension of the writ petitioner is consequent
4
2025:MLHC:303
2025:MLHC:304
upon the complaint that had been made by the respondent No. 5,
before the respondent No. 1, with regard to certain allegations and
charges. The learned counsel further submits that on the same
charges that the present complaint is based, in the year 2023 the
matter had been gone into by the official respondents and the
petitioner at that point of time was placed under suspension, and
after an enquiry had been reinstated on 04.03.2024. He therefore
submits that on the same charges, it is impermissible that the
petitioner be put under suspension again, and prays that in the
interim, some protection be given to allow the petitioner to continue
to function as the Sirdar of Elaka Nongpoh.
Though the official respondents are not present in Court
today, a perusal of the materials as presented, substantiate the
submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that on
the basis of the earlier proceedings that had been instituted, the
petitioner had been put under suspension. Thereafter, on conclusion
of enquiry proceedings thereof, he was reinstated vide order dated
04.03.2024, by the Executive Committee.
A perusal of the petition dated 13.03.2024 by the respondent
No. 5, shows that the demand made therein for re-initiation of
inquiry against the writ petitioner was on the ground that there were
procedural irregularities in the concluded enquiry. Further, another
letter dated 22.05.2024, it appears has also been filed before the
official respondents against the re-appointment of the writ petitioner,
as Sirdar of Nongpoh Sirdarship.
In the considered view of this Court at this stage itself, what is
reflected is that the complaint of the respondent No. 5, was against
5
2025:MLHC:303
2025:MLHC:304
the irregularities committed in the earlier proceedings, and it is not
based on any fresh charges, for which the petitioner has to answer.
As such, a prima facie case has been made out, for interim orders at
this stage.
Accordingly, the impugned order dated 03.12.2024 shall not
be given effect to, and the petitioner be allowed to function as Sirdar
of Nongpoh Sirdarship, presently.
As this order has been passed in the absence of the official
respondents, they are at liberty to file appropriate applications for
vacation, alteration, if deemed necessary.
List this matter on 07.02.2025.”
4. The applicants in these Misc. Applications have based their prayers
for vacating the interim order, which allowed the writ petitioner to continue
in office, on the plea that the writ petitioner though re-instated has since lost
the confidence of the Lyngdoh Raid(s), Electors and also the Longsan and
Mansan of the Nongpoh Sirdarship, which has created a deadlock in the
administration of the said Sirdarship. It has also been stated in the
applications that the suspension was on the basis of fresh complaints and
that due process had been followed, apart from the exercise of statutory
authority of the District Council under the Act, which empowered it to
suspend or remove a Chief and to take necessary measures for the purposes
of administrative exigency.
6
2025:MLHC:303
2025:MLHC:304
5. Mr. S. Marpan, learned counsel for the applicant in MC(WPC) No.
218 of 2024, has submitted that based on the subsequent complaints, notice
had been issued to the writ petitioner providing him an opportunity to
respond, and it was only after hearing the submissions of the parties on
24.09.2024, and consequent upon the submissions and written arguments,
that the impugned order dated 02.12.2024, was passed placing the writ
petitioner under suspension pending inquiry. The interim order he submits,
by allowing the writ petitioner to continue in office has resulted in an
administrative deadlock in the Sirdarship.
6. Mr. S. Sen, learned counsel for the applicant in MC(WPC) No. 222 of
2024, submits that the applicants are aggrieved with the manner and style of
functioning of the writ petitioner in administering the Sirdarship, and has
referred to Para – 3 of the application, wherein the grievances are contained.
Learned counsel has further submitted that the contention of the writ
petitioner that he has been placed under suspension on the same charges for
which an inquiry had already been gone into is totally false and misleading.
Reference is then made to a copy of a letter dated 27.09.2024, wherein he
submits, objections have been raised against the writ petitioner before the
official respondents, which has been annexed to the application at Annexure
– B, as also other complaints dated 30.09.2024, protesting against the writ
petitioner’s re-instatement. He therefore submits that with the loss of
7
2025:MLHC:303
2025:MLHC:304
confidence and the deadlock in the administration that has occurred, the
vacation of the interim order is necessary to allow a duly appointed
Administrator, to look after the administration pending the inquiry.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Looking into the
surrounding facts and circumstances of the case, it is seen that the writ
petitioner had by an earlier order dated 19.04.2023, issued by the District
Council been placed under suspension pending inquiry, and that one of the
grievances in those complaints was the loss of confidence of several
Lyngdoh’s of Nongpoh Sirdarship on the writ petitioner. An inquiry was
then gone into, which was conducted by a Judicial Magistrate of the District
Council Courts, which then submitted an inquiry report dated 14.12.2023.
Pursuant to the acceptance of the inquiry report dated 14.12.2023, the writ
petitioner was then re-instated by the official respondents. A perusal of the
inquiry report dated 14.12.2023, reflects that amongst the 6(six) charges
framed in the inquiry, the loss of confidence was one of the charges,
wherein the same has been discussed. However, it is also interesting to note
that it is recorded in the inquiry report that no materials or evidence had
been brought to substantiate the charge, by the complainants who also did
not file any documents. As such, as the writ petitioner was exonerated of the
charges, he was re-instated vide order dated 04.03.2024. No appeal was
8
2025:MLHC:303
2025:MLHC:304
thereafter filed against this re-instatement order by the complainants or the
applicants.
8. Coming to the fresh turn of events, from the pleadings and arguments
of the applicants, it is seen that on the fresh complaints against the writ
petitioner filed between March and May, 2024, the writ petitioner by letter
dated 27.05.2024, was directed to submit his show-cause. An examination
of the fresh complaints dated 13.03.2024, reminder dated 30.04.2024 and
22.05.2024, reflects only the demand for re-initiation of the inquiry against
the writ petitioner. A perusal of the show-cause reply has also been perused,
wherein, the writ petitioner has reiterated his stand that he had faced the
inquiry, wherein the complainants having failed to contest and produce
documentary evidence, and as such, could not seek re-opening of the same,
and further that the District Council respondents were not vested with
powers, to review its own order.
9. As per the order of suspension dated 02.12.2024, it is seen that the
matter was heard on 24.09.2024, and the parties were directed to submit
their written arguments, which was then submitted by the complainants on
27.09.2024 and 04.10.2024, and by the writ petitioner on 03.10.2024. What
is interesting to note at this juncture is the contents and statements contained
in the said written argument dated 27.09.2024, on which heavy reliance has
been placed upon by the applicants, which though styled as an objection to
9
2025:MLHC:303
2025:MLHC:304
the re-instatement, contains fresh allegations to which the writ petitioner
was unaware of, and as such, could not have filed a show-cause or even
submit written arguments on the same. As earlier noted, the writ petitioner
was asked to show-cause to the complaints or petitions against re-
instatement, and for re-initiation of inquiry, and it is not a case where the
proceedings were to consider fresh charges or allegations. In the considered
view of this Court, the second suspension therefore after re-instatement on
new grounds that the writ petitioner had not been asked to show-cause to,
would surely amount to a denial of adequate opportunity.
10. Section 6 of the United Khasi and Jaintia Hills Autonomous District
(Appointment and Succession of Chiefs and Headmen) Act 1959,
contemplates in the second proviso the opportunity of being heard before
suspension or removal, which appears to have been resorted to by the
District Council. Thus, it is not a case as contemplated under the exceptions
provided to the second proviso, wherein an order of suspension can be made
pending inquiry. Section 19 of the Act, though providing for emergency
provisions in cases of administrative deadlock, to the mind of this Court,
and on submissions of the parties would not be attracted at this stage, as the
factum of administrative deadlock has not been established.
11. From the discussions above, what can be distilled from the facts and
materials as placed, is with the disgruntlement of the applicants and certain
10
2025:MLHC:303
2025:MLHC:304
sections of the Dorbar with the discharge of functions by the writ petitioner
in his capacity as the Sordar of Nongpoh Sirdarship, for which complaints
notwithstanding the re-instatement in office, pursuant to the inquiry have
been filed before the District Council. However, the manner in which the
District Council respondents dealt with the prayer for re-initiation of
inquiry, especially on the ground of lack of confidence, which was one of
the charges in the earlier inquiry, and without affording opportunity to the
writ petitioner to answer to the fresh charges has definitely resulted in the
proceedings being irregular. The matter situated thus, and as further
questions have arisen with regard to the office of the Sordar of Nongpoh,
the prayer for vacation of the interim order is rejected at this stage, and the
interim order dated 06.12.2024, is made absolute.
12. As the matter is of some urgency, the main writ petition shall be
listed for hearing on 28th April, 2025 as a fixed matter.
13. These Misc. Applications are accordingly disposed of.
Judge
Meghalaya
16.04.2025
“D.Thabah-PS”
Signature Not Verified 11
Digitally signed by DARIHUN
THABAH
Date: 2025.04.16 19:51:39 IST
[ad_1]
Source link