Research › Search › Judgment

Meghalaya High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 74 (MEG)

Miren M. Marak v. State of Meghalaya

2019-03-15

H.S.THANGKHIEW

body2019
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. S. Thapa, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. B. Bhattacharjee, learned AAG assisted by Ms. Z.E. Nongkynrih, learned GA for the respondents No. 1 & 2 and Mr. S. Dey, learned counsel for the respondents No. 3 & 4. 2. The instant Misc. application was filed on 14.09.2017 with the following prayer: In the premises aforesaid, it is most humbly prayed that your Lordships may be pleased to admit this petition, call for the records, issue notice upon the Respondents to show cause as to why the relief granted by this Honble vide Judgment and order dated 03.07.2017 passed in W.P. (C) No. 115/ 2017 and W.P. (C) No. 98/ 2015 be not extended for a further period of 60 (sixty) days and/ or on cause or causes being shown and upon hearing the parties be further pleased to make the Rule absolute and/ or may pass such further or other Order or Orders as your Lordships may deem fit and proper and In the interim, during the pendency of the instant miscellaneous application, this Honble Court may be pleased to stay the operation of the eviction order dated 04.09.2017 issued by the Respondent No. 2. 3. This Court vide order dated 15.09.2017 had stayed the operation of the impugned order dated 04.09.2017 (Annexure-7) till the next date. The matter was listed twice thereafter, but after 17.11.2017 the interim order was not continued, nor was any prayer made on behalf of the applicant for its extension. Affidavits were exchanged in the meanwhile wherein the respondents raised grounds as to the maintainability of the Misc. application on various aspects such as the locus of the applicants amongst others. 4. This application is confined to the limited prayer for extension of the reliefs granted by this Court vide judgment and order dated 03.07.2017 for a period of 60 days. This application was filed on 14.09.2017, and by the efflux of time has since been rendered infructuous, as the period sought for has long lapsed. Nothing remains to be decided in the instant application. Accordingly, the same is closed and disposed of. 5. Needless to say the parties may take recourse further legal remedy, if so advised.