Research › Search › Judgment

Meghalaya High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 176 (MEG)

Phengly Mawtyllup v. K. H. A. D. C.

2019-06-06

H.S.THANGKHIEW

body2019
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties present. 2. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner is the elected Lyngdoh of the Mawtyllup of Myriaw Syiemship and was issued Sanad on 17th July 2015 by the Respondent No.3, confirming him as Lyngdoh of Mawtyllup Clan. The respondents No. 4 & 5 thereafter lodged a complaint before the Executive Member. i/c Elaka Administration and the matter was taken up by the respondent No. 2. After receiving the replies filed the petitioner to the respondents complaints, the Respondent No.2 vide order dated 21st July, 2017, which is impugned herein, directed the respondent No. 3 (Syiem Myriaw) to cancel the Sanad dated 17th July, 2015 and also to hold fresh elections for the post of Lyngdoh of the Mawtyllup Clan. Being aggrieved thereby the petitioner is before this Court. 3. Mr. L. Lyngdoh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the election was held as per due process and customs and that the Sanad issued by the respondent No. 3 is valid in all respects. Further, he submits that the impugned order was passed without hearing the parties, and the order also does not reflect on what ground or reason a direction for cancellation of Sanad and for fresh election was passed. As such, he prays that the impugned order being cryptic, non-speaking, passed without application of mind and in violation of the principles of Natural justice be set aside and quashed. 4. Mr. H.L. Shangreiso, learned counsel for the respondents No. 4 to 6, who are the persons who lodged the complaints against the election of the petitioner, submits that the complaints were lodged in view of the fact that the election was done in a secretly convened private meeting and is also in violation of the prevalent custom. He contends that apart from the purported election, the writ petitioner is not eligible as per custom to be a Lyngdoh as he is not a descendant from the womb of Ka Theihlieh. As such, he submits that after consideration of these complaints and facts, the order was rightly passed by the Respondent No.2 for cancellation of the Sanad and for holding of fresh elections. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. As such, he submits that after consideration of these complaints and facts, the order was rightly passed by the Respondent No.2 for cancellation of the Sanad and for holding of fresh elections. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. After considering the submissions and having examined the materials on records, the short point in my mind that arises for decision in the present petition is the legality of the impugned order dated 21st July, 2017 whereby directions were issued by the respondent No. 2 for cancellation of the Sanad and for fresh election. The impugned order dated 21st July, 2017 for ready reference is quoted herein below: "OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE KHASI HILLS AUTONOMOUS DISTRICT COUNCIL SHILLONG No. DC.XVII/Genl/PF/105/2004-17/29 dated Shillong the ___ July 2017. To, The Acting Syiem Myriaw, Myriaw Syiemship. Sub: Matter of the Lyngdoh of Mawtyllup Clan, Myriaw Syiemship. Syiem, In connection with the subject above and as per discussion at the meeting held on 06.06.2017, you are instructed to hold the elections for the post of the Lyngdoh of the Mawtyllup Clan, for representation before Hima Myriaw. At the same time you are instructed to cancel the Sanad dated 17.07.2015 issued to Shri Phengly Mawtyllup. Yours respectfully, Sd/- Joint Secretary to the Executive Committee, Khasi Hills Autonomous District Council, Shillong. No.DC.XVII/Genl/PF/105/2004-17/29(a)279 dt Shillong the 21st July 2017. Copy to: 1. Shri N.S. Mawtyllup, Secretary Mawtyllup Clan. } Myriaw Shyiemship 2. Shri Phengly Mawtyllup, Thamah village. } for information Sd/- Joint Secretary to the Executive Committee, Khasi Hills Autonomous District Council, Shillong." 7. A bare perusal of the above noted order would reflect that it is neither a speaking nor a reasoned order, nor is it reflected anywhere that the parties have been heard or any proceeding adopted. Orders passed in such matters that concern a large number of persons who are necessarily affected, should at least be conducted in a proper proceeding considering the fact that the Respondent No. 2 is a quasi judicial body vested with the authority to deliberate such matters. 8. It is incumbent upon the respondent authorities to hear and decide the matter in merit after due consideration of facts and circumstances. Unfortunately, in the present case the same does not seem to have been done. The respondents No. 1 & 2 also vide their affidavit have admitted this deficiency at Para-11 which is quoted herein below: "11. 8. It is incumbent upon the respondent authorities to hear and decide the matter in merit after due consideration of facts and circumstances. Unfortunately, in the present case the same does not seem to have been done. The respondents No. 1 & 2 also vide their affidavit have admitted this deficiency at Para-11 which is quoted herein below: "11. That, with regard to the statements made in paragraph 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23 of the writ petition, the answering Respondents states that the grievance of the Petitioner by order dated 21.07.2017 can be address again by the answering respondents in the interest of justice and an appropriate order can be pass thereon by the Executive Committee." (Emphasis supplied) 9. In view of the facts and circumstances as discussed and also on the pointed admission by the Respondent No. 1 and 2, (District Council) on affidavit, the impugned order dated 21st July, 2017 is hereby quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back to the respondent No. 2 for consideration in accordance with law. 10. The respondent No. 2 is directed to dispose of the matter within 6 (six) months from the date of receipt of this order. The parties are liberty to file their written submissions or any materials relevant to the case. Needless to say the petitioner shall continue in office till the matter is finally adjudicated by the respondent No. 2. 11. With the above directions, the petition is allowed and disposed of. 12. No order as to costs.