Research › Search › Judgment

Meghalaya High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 225 (MEG)

Nidahun Shadap v. Emilianda Nikhla

2022-08-23

SANJIB BANERJEE, W.DIENGDOH

body2022
JUDGMENT Sanjib Banerjee, CJ. - The appeal is directed against an order dated August 3, 2022 passed on a writ petition filed by the first respondent. 2. At the outset an objection is taken that the appeal is premature since the writ petition has not been disposed of by the order impugned. 3. By the order impugned, in effect, the writ petitioner has been given temporary custody of one Roland Nikhla who is said to be aged, infirm, mentally unsound and unable to manage his own affairs. 4. To the extent that the impugned order gives even temporary custody of the said Roland Nikhla to the writ petitioner, there is sufficient basis for the appellants herein to be aggrieved by the same and to prefer an appeal thereagainst. 5. It is of some significance that Roland Nikhla was the subject-matter of a habeas corpus petition carried to this Court which was disposed of earlier this year upon the whereabouts of the person being discovered. At the time that the habeas corpus petition was disposed of, a dispute arose between the relatives of Roland Nikhla as to which set of them would be entitled to his custody. Since such issue was completely alien to a habeas corpus petition, the rival parties were given liberty to take steps in accordance with law in such regard. 6. The writ petition in this case was filed with the following prayers: 'i. to direct the respondent No.4/Superintendent of Police Jowai to immediately bring back Shri Roland Nikhla to the residence of the Petitioner at Mookyrdup, Ladthalaboh Jowai, West Jaintia Hills District, Meghalaya, from where he was illegally removed by the Respondent No.6 and 7 with the help of Respondent No.5/Jowai Police without any authority of law. ii. to act upon the F.I.R. dated 11.02.2022 and F.I.R. dated 14.02.2022 filed by the Petitioner before the Jowai Police Station as per law. iii. to take strict action against Respondent No.5 who is the Officer In Charge Jowai Police. iv. to take strong action against Respondent No.6 to 8 for wrongful confinement and ill treatment to Shri Roland Nikhla. v. and after hearing the parties make the rule absolute. vi. Any other Order or Orders as deem fit and proper.' 7. iii. to take strict action against Respondent No.5 who is the Officer In Charge Jowai Police. iv. to take strong action against Respondent No.6 to 8 for wrongful confinement and ill treatment to Shri Roland Nikhla. v. and after hearing the parties make the rule absolute. vi. Any other Order or Orders as deem fit and proper.' 7. The writ petitioner made out a case that the fifth respondent to the writ petition, the Officer-in-Charge of Jowai Police Station, had wrongfully given custody of Roland Nikhla to the respondent Nos.6 and 7 to the writ petition. Though a case was made out against the Officer-in- Charge of the Jowai Police Station so as to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, the real dispute was between the private parties pertaining to the custody of Roland Nikhla. 8. Since it is the admitted position that the rival claimants seeking to obtain custody of Roland Nikhla are tribals and since it amounts to a civil dispute, the rival claimants ought to approach the appropriate District Council Court in such regard. As it is, when the issue was sought to be raised at the end of the habeas corpus proceedings, this Court had given liberty to the rival claimants to take steps in accordance with law. 9. Accordingly, without going into the rival claims and the merits thereof, the writ petition, WP (C) No.215 of 2022, and the present appeal, WA No.31 of 2022, are disposed of by giving liberty to the private parties making rival claims to obtain the custody of Roland Nikhla to approach the appropriate District Council Court for such court to take up the matter and deal with the same in accordance with law. It is made clear that the position obtaining at the moment, pursuant to the order impugned, will continue till any order is passed by the relevant District Council Court which is approached in such regard. The District Council Court will give reasonable opportunity of hearing to the rival parties before making any interim or final order on the matter. 10. It is made clear that the appropriate District Council Court, if approached, should deal with the matter in accordance with law and with utmost expedition without being unduly influenced by the order impugned herein. 11. There will be no order as to costs.