ORDER The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice T. Vaiphei 1. The application is issuing an interim order suspending the operation of the order dated 22-7-2011 issued by the Executive Member I/c Revenue, Garo Hills District Council (respondent 3) removing the names of the applicants the Genealogical Tree (GT) relating to Mangsang Akhing and for allowing them to continue as the Nokma of the Mangsang Akhing during the pendency of the writ petition. 2. No written objection has been filed by the District Council. The facts material for disposal of the application may be briefly noticed at the outset. It is the case of the applicants that the Akhing land called Mangsang belongs to -Rangme Marak" clan to which they belong; that this Akhing was subsequently converted into an Akhing of Nongura clan contrary to the customary law. This had prompted the predecessors-in-interest of the applicants to file an application before the respondent No. 3 for correction of the related Akhing records (GT) in the names of Smt. Malse Marak Rangme and Shri Salda Sangma Nengminja as the Nokma of the Mangsang Akhing, which was registered as GDC Revenue Case No. 41 A/C of 1979-80, but the same was dismissed on 9-5-1983.The matter was then taken to appeal before the respondent No. 2, who set aside the impugned order and declared the said Malse Marak Rangme and Salda Sangma Nengminja as the rightful Nokmas of the Akhing. The respondent No. 4 and 5 then challenged the order before this Court in Civil Rule No. 33 of 1984, and this Court by the order dated 16-6-1988 remanded the case to the respondent No. 2 with a direction to confine his inquiry to the question as to which clan the Akhing belonged. The respondent No. 2 after hearing the case passed the order dated 8-12-2003 (which was actually pronounced on 18-3-2004) holding that the Akhing belonged to Rangme clan and not to the Nongura clan whereupon the applicants were allowed to continue to discharge their duties as the Nokma. The respondent No. 4 and 5 then filed WP(C) No. 112 (SH) of 2004 before this Court, which by the order dated 11-7-2006 set aside the order dated 8-12-2003 and remanded the case to the respondent No. 2 for fresh consideration in accordance with law. In the meantime, the applicants continued to function as the Nokma. The respondent No. 4 and 5 then filed WP(C) No. 112 (SH) of 2004 before this Court, which by the order dated 11-7-2006 set aside the order dated 8-12-2003 and remanded the case to the respondent No. 2 for fresh consideration in accordance with law. In the meantime, the applicants continued to function as the Nokma. The writ appeal being WA No. 2(SH) of 2007 against this order filed by the respondent No. 4 and 5 was, however, dismissed on 18-2-2010 in default of prosecution, and the application filed by the applicants for restoration of the appeal is said to be pending till now. In the meantime, one Salindro N. Sangma of Nongura clan filed an application before the respondent No. 3 on 15-3-2011 for appointing the respondent No. 4 and 5 to be the Nokma. The respondent No. 3 thereafter passed the impugned order appointing the respondent No. 4 and 5 as the Nokma by deleting the names of the applicants from the relevant GT. This is how the writ petition was filed by the applicants along with this Misc. Case. 3. Mr. H.S. Thangkhiew, the learned senior counsel for the applicants, submits that the impugned order has been passed by the respondent No. 3 by completely ignoring the directions of this Court passed in the order dated 11-7-2006, that too, without hearing the applicants: these alone are sufficient to stay the impugned order. On the other hand, Mr. S. Dey, the learned counsel for the District Council, contends that the subject-matter of the impugned order is entirely different from the controversy involved in WP(C) No. 112(SH) of 2004 and the respondent No. 3 cannot, therefore, be faulted with issuing the impugned order which is about the Nokmaship and not about the question as to which clan the Akhing land belong. As the impugned order has been passed by the respondent No. 3 after considering all aspects of the matter, no prima facie case is made out by the applicants for the interference of this Court. He also points out that notices are yet to be issued to the private respondents and, as such, no interim order may be passed without hearing them. 4. Basic facts may be noted before proceeding further. He also points out that notices are yet to be issued to the private respondents and, as such, no interim order may be passed without hearing them. 4. Basic facts may be noted before proceeding further. The order of this Court in WP(C) No. 112(SH) of 2004 had been challenged by the applicants before the Division Bench of this Court in WA No. 2(SH) of 2007. This Court by the order dated 18-8-2006 in the connected Misc. Case No. 2943 of 2006 had stayed the aforesaid order of this Court. But then, the writ appeal was subsequently dismissed by the Division Bench on 18-2-2010 due to non-prosecution. The application for restoring the appeal is said to be still pending. The net effect of dismissal of the writ appeal is that the directions of this Court in WP(C) No. 112(SH) of 2004 that the respondent No. 2 should take up the case again for consideration in accordance with law and also keeping in mind the observations of this Court therein, had reviewed and continue to be operative till today. Prima facie, the controversy involved in WP(C) No. 112(SH) of 2004 and the subject-matter of the impugned order are essentially one and the same, namely, who is entitled to be the Nokma of the Mangsang Akhing, for effective adjudication whereof the determination of the clan owning the Akhing land will be crucial. This is the issue which the respondent No. 2 is required to decide in terms of the directions of this Court. However, apparently with a view to circumvent the directions of this Court, a third party, namely, Letwin Marak, filed an application before the respondent No. 3 for recognizing the private respondents as the Nokma of the Akhing. In my opinion, such an application, prima facie, is collusive and mala fides and is apparently filed by him in consultation with the private respondents to set at naught the directions of this Court. It is not understood as to how the application of this gentleman came to be entertained by the respondent No. 3 when he did not appear to have any semblance of personal interest in the case. It is not understood as to how the application of this gentleman came to be entertained by the respondent No. 3 when he did not appear to have any semblance of personal interest in the case. In my opinion, the impugned order is, prima facie, contrary to the directions of this Court in WP(C) No. 112(SH) of 2004; not to stay the impugned order will amount to perpetuation of illegality and of circumventing the order of this Court passed in WP(C) No. 112(SH) of 2004. What cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly. Litigants should not be allowed to play cat and mouse game with this Court. 5. For what has been stated in the foregoing, this application is allowed. The operation of the order dated 22-7-2011 passed by the respondent No. 3 GHADC-REV No. 167 A.C. of 2011 (Annexure-7) is hereby stayed during the pendency of the connected writ petition. Resultantly, the respondent No. 3 shall reinstate the applicants as the Nokma of the Mangsang Akhing after deleting the names of the private respondents there from within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of this order. Since this order is passed ex-parte against the private respondents, liberty is, however, granted to them to apply for modification or cancellation thereof. Nothing stated in the foregoing shall, however, be construed as final observations on the merit of the case, which is yet to be heard. It is made clear that this order will not stand in the way of the respondent No. 2 to decide the case remanded to him on merit after hearing both the parties till the order of this Court dated 11-7-2006 in WP(C) No. 112(SH) of 2004 is set aside or stayed by the Division Bench of this Court. No cost. Application allowed