Research › Search › Judgment

Meghalaya High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 44 (MEG)

Meghalaya Public Service Commission v. Millon Ch. Momin

2019-02-21

H.S.THANGKHIEW, MOHAMMAD YAQOOB MIR

body2019
JUDGMENT : Mohammad Yaqoob Mir, J. Aggrieved by the order dated 15.11.2016 passed in WP (C) No.18 of 2015 instant writ appeal has been filed. 2. It is the contention of learned counsel for the appellant that the direction of Superintendent of Police, CBI to remain present and then opening of CBI report as produced in a sealed cover in presence of Superintendent of Police, CBI and learned counsel for the parties runs contrary to the direction issued by the Appellate Court while disposing of Writ Appeal No.67 of 2016. 3. In petition WP (C) No.18 of 2015 learned Single Judge vide order dated 16.06.2016 had directed in-charge Superintendent of Police, CBI to conduct preliminary enquiry in relation to the subject matter of writ petition wherein the process for recruitment of Meghalaya Police Service has been put into question. 4. During pendency of the appeal preliminary enquiry was completed by CBI, the report in a sealed cover was submitted. Learned Appellate Court while disposing of the appeal has opined that the Appellate Court is unable to endorsed the process adopted by the learned Single Judge. However, for the subsequent events and factors annulling of the enquiry was not proper. The report made by CBI and the entire material in the sealed cover is not required to be opened. In the interest of justice, the entire material with the record of writ petition has to be placed before the learned Single Judge, who may examine such material as deemed necessary and take a considered decision in the matter in accordance with law. Thereafter, it has been observed as under:- "Obviously, after returning final or at least prima facie finding on the contentious issues, the aspects relating to CBI report may also be examined by the learned Single Judge and appropriate decision thereupon could be taken in accordance with law. Having regard to the circumstances and for appropriate further proceeding in the writ petition, it is considered appropriate that the order dated 16.06.2016 and directions therein be treated to be in abeyance until specific finding is reached in the writ petition as indicated hereinbefore. As observed, after such finding, appropriate orders shall follow in accordance with law. It is noticed that the writ petition was to be placed before the learned Single Judge after three months from 16.06.2016 but, has remained pending because of this appeal. As observed, after such finding, appropriate orders shall follow in accordance with law. It is noticed that the writ petition was to be placed before the learned Single Judge after three months from 16.06.2016 but, has remained pending because of this appeal. Now, with the disposal of this appeal, the office is directed to place the entire record of the writ petition before the learned Single Judge; and the parties through their respective counsel shall stand at notice to appear before the learned Single Judge on 15.11.2016. This Writ Appeal stands disposed of accordingly. No costs." 5. It is quite clear that the order of writ court dated 16.06.2016 has to remain in abeyance until specific finding is returned in the writ petition vis-a-vis contentious issue. It is thereafter the aspect relating to CBI report could be examined by the learned Single Judge. In short, once the order dated 16.06.2016 providing for CBI enquiry is kept in abeyance as a necessary corollary thereto, the report submitted by CBI cannot be considered until the learned Single Judge returns a final or at least prima facie finding on the contentious issue as raised against the maintainability. 6. In the stated facts and reasons, the direction of learned Single Judge passed on 15.11.2016 for presence of Superintendent of Police, CBI and opening of CBI report as produced in a sealed cover is set aside. The learned Single Judge shall proceed in tune with the conclusion of the judgment dated 26.10.2016 passed in WA No.67 of 2016. 7. Lot of time has been already consumed. In order to avoid further protraction writ petition shall be listed before the learned Single Judge having roster in the next week. 8. Appeal disposed of as above.