JUDGMENT 1. Matter taken up via Video Conferencing. 2. This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 23.10.2018 passed in Execution Case No. 7 of 2018 by the Chief Executive Member, GHADC. 3. The brief facts are that the petitioner is the headman of village Chibrajambal, P.O – Dokongsi, P.S- Kharkutta, North Garo Hills, Meghalaya who is tasked with the responsibility of administering the village for the well-being of the inhabitants. It appears that the private respondents, some time in the month of January, 2018 had stolen fish from the community pond, thereby causing damage and loss to the community. The matter was brought to the notice of the Village Court and in the proceedings that followed, after hearing all the parties concerned, fines were imposed upon the private respondents jointly and severely amounting to Rs. 24,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Four Thousand only). This penalty was imposed vide order dated 26.04.2018. 4. This order, it appears was never put to challenge and as such, the petitioner being the village headman, had filed an application for execution of the same before the Chief Executive Member, GHADC, Tura, which however, was refused to be entertained by the CEM who instead dismissed the matter by order dated 23.10.2018, by also indicating therein that the same had been withdrawn. 5. Mr. R. Kar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had never withdrawn the Execution case and as such there was no question of it being treated as withdrawn. He further submits that, when the existence of the said Village Court order was brought to the notice of the CEM, appropriate action should have been initiated such as, by referring the same to a competent Sub-Ordinate Court for execution or by passing any orders, as these proceedings are governed by The Garo Hills Autonomous District (Administration of Justice) Rules, 1953. 6. Mr. R. Kar, learned counsel further submits that this matter has been brought before this Court by way of an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, in view of the fact that gross illegality has been committed which warrants intervention by this Court, as the petitioner has been left without any remedy. 7. Also heard Mr. S. Dey, learned Standing Counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2. 7. Also heard Mr. S. Dey, learned Standing Counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2. Though notices had been issued to the private respondents, no appearance has been made on their behalf and the office note indicates that the report on service was never returned. However, their presence is not deemed necessary or will they be put to any disadvantage as even before the Chief Executive Member, they were not put to notice as the matter had summarily been disposed. Mr. S. Dey in his usual frankness has left the matter to the discretion of this Court. 8. On perusal of the impugned order and after hearing the counsel for the petitioner, the only point in issue in the instant case is whether the Chief Executive Member had wrongly dismissed the case of the petitioner by holding that he had no jurisdiction to take up the matter coupled with the observation that the same had been withdrawn. This in the view of this Court is an erroneous conclusion, inasmuch as, as submitted by the counsel for the petitioner, such proceedings are governed by The Garo Hills Autonomous District (Administration of Justice) Rules, 1953. Rule 17 of the Rules which provides for such eventualities as has occasioned in the present case, wherein the Village Court has imposed the fine on the respondents, is reproduced hereinbelow for the sake of convenience. “17. If any person on whom a fine or any payment has been imposed by a Village Court fails to deposit the amount at once or within such time as the Village Court may allow, the Court shall report the matter to the District Council for necessary action to realize the fine or dues in such manner as it may deem fit unless the accused person gives notice to appeal against such decision.” 9. In view of the stated position of law, the impugned order therefore being arbitrary has caused grave injustice to the petitioner and his villagers and the same is set aside. The matter shall stand remanded back to the Chief Executive Member, GHADC to hear and dispose of the same in accordance with law after affording opportunity to the necessary parties, as expeditiously as possible. 10. In the circumstances thereof, the instant revision application is allowed and accordingly disposed of. Lower Court records to be sent back forthwith. 11. No order as to costs.