Research › Search › Judgment

Meghalaya High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 86 (MEG)

Gavin M. Mylliem v. Mebanshailang R. Synrem

2019-03-26

MOHAMMAD YAQOOB MIR

body2019
JUDGMENT : 1. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner with all vehemence at his command projected that the judgment of this Court is being disobeyed with impunity by projecting false pretexts. Whatever was required to be done by the petitioner has been done but the respondents with adamant approach have not only dismayed the petitioner but a wrong message is flashed viz-a-viz disobedience of the Courts order. 2. On previous date of hearing learned Addl.AG pointed out that there is an obstacle i.e., model code of conduct in view of the ensuing Lok Sabha elections, that too was a pretext. Position of law is clear i.e., for implementation of the judgment of the Court such code of conduct does not and cannot be treated as an impediment. 3. Today, learned senior counsel for the petitioner invited the attention towards order passed by the Honble Apex Court on 25.04.2018 in MA No. 1152/2018 captioned "B.K. Pavithra Etc. v. Union of India Etc." Para 2 of the said order is advantageous to be quoted; "2. We make it clear that the election code of conduct will not be treated an impediment to comply with judgment of this Court and the promotions may be accordingly made, wherever not made, in accordance with the judgment of this Court." 4. Further reliance has placed on the judgment rendered in WP No. 300 of 2011 passed by the High Court of Calcutta in the case of M/S Maheshtala Agro Foods Private Limited & Anr. v. The State of West Bengal & Ors. on 16.03.2011 wherein, it has been observed as under: "Having considered the submissions of the Learned Counsel appearing for the parties including the Learned Counsel for the State, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose will be served in keeping the matter pending before this Court because the authorities must bear in mind that model code of conduct cannot obstruct the implementation of the judgment and/or order passed by the High Court." 5. Confronted with the aforesaid position, learned Addl.AG submits that the respondents have no alternative but to implement the judgment however, some authorities are busy in connection with the election. Such submission of the learned Addl.AG is outrightly rejected. Confronted with the aforesaid position, learned Addl.AG submits that the respondents have no alternative but to implement the judgment however, some authorities are busy in connection with the election. Such submission of the learned Addl.AG is outrightly rejected. The respondents shall ensure compliance of the judgment and to report the compliance latest by 28.03.2019, in default to remain personally present so that appropriate order in contempt proceedings is passed in their presence. 6. List again on 28.03.2019.