Research › Search › Judgment

Meghalaya High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 200 (MEG)

Sobina Yasmin v. State of Meghalaya

2022-07-27

SANJIB BANERJEE, W.DIENGDOH

body2022
JUDGMENT Sanjib Banerjee, CJ. - The application is for leave to appeal by a non-party apparently aggrieved by an order dated June 23, 2022 passed on a writ petition pertaining to the election or appointment of office-bearers in the Moulakhandi Village Employment Council. 2. The operative part of the judgment and order sought to be assailed provides as follows: '6. In this view of the matter, the orders dated 13.01.2020 and 14.01.2020 shall be disregarded and the impugned order dated 23.12.2020 shall stand quashed and set aside. '7. Accordingly, the respondent No.3, under the supervision of the respondent No.2 is directed to examine the entire matter afresh and to conduct elections to elect new VEC and its functionaries, and to look into the matter with regard to the bifurcation of the VEC, which seems to be unjustified. The entire process shall be completed within a period of 4(four) weeks from the date of receipt the certified copy of this order.' 3. The applicant refers to an order passed by the office of the BDO, Demdema C&RD Block, West Garo Hills, Tura by which the applicant was appointed as the Secretary of Moulakhandi Part-IV for a period of three years by the relevant order of December 23, 2020. Significantly, the relevant order bears the number DDB.6/Apptt/MGNREGS/2020-21/194. 4. A copy of the writ petition on which the order dated June 23, 2022 was passed has been appended to the present application. It appears from the typed copy at page 121 of the present papers and the somewhat illegible copy of the original document at page 121 B thereof that the order dated December 23, 2020 passed by the same Block Development and Programme Officer that was challenged in the writ petition bore the number DDB.6/Apptt/MGNREGS/2020-21/193. 5. It is evident that by the order of the Single Bench of June 23, 2022, it is such order bearing No.DDB.6/Apptt/MGNREGS/2020-21/193 dated December 23, 2020 that has been set aside and not any other order that had not been assailed or challenged in the writ petition. 6. There is no doubt that steps have been taken by the respondents to the writ petition pursuant to the directions contained in paragraph 7 of the order of the Single Bench; but the directions contained in paragraph 7 have to be read in conjunction with and in the light of paragraph 6 that precedes it. 7. 6. There is no doubt that steps have been taken by the respondents to the writ petition pursuant to the directions contained in paragraph 7 of the order of the Single Bench; but the directions contained in paragraph 7 have to be read in conjunction with and in the light of paragraph 6 that precedes it. 7. Since the applicant's order of appointment has not been interfered with in the order of the Single Bench proposed to be challenged, the applicant does not appear to be a person aggrieved by such order to be entitled to leave to prefer an appeal against the relevant order of this Court. As to the steps taken by the respondents pursuant to the order of the Single Bench, it will be open to the applicant to take appropriate steps in accordance with law. 8. Accordingly, MC (WA) No.11 of 2022 is dismissed. The appeal is not taken on board. WA No.28 of 2022 should be treated as disposed of. 9. There will be no order as to costs.