Research › Search › Judgment

Meghalaya High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 77 (MEG)

Swanting Khasain v. Hima Nongspung Syiemship

2022-04-06

H.S.THANGKHIEW

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. The issues raised in these two writ petitions being similar, are proposed to be disposed of by this common judgment and order. 2. The grievance of the writ petitioner in WP(C) 374/2020 is that he has been suspended by the respondent No. 2, vide the impugned order dated 26.10.2020, who he contends is not vested with any jurisdiction nor the competent authority to exercise such power, customarily or otherwise. 3. The petitioner who is the Sordar of 9 villages was elected as per the customary practice and was issued a Sanad by the respondent No. 5 (Lyngdoh, Ri-Lyngdoh Wahlang 9 Kyntoit) on 28.08.2016, and the same was also approved by the respondent No. 4 (Executive Committee, Khasi Hills Autonomous District Council). 4. The case as projected by the writ petitioner is that due to some complaints which had been lodged against him, the respondent No. 2 (The Chief/Syiem of Hima Nongspung Syiemship) had issued a show cause dated 31.07.2020, calling for an explanation. The writ petitioner accordingly replied to the show cause by a reply dated 08.09.2020 denying the allegations, and further asserted that he being customarily elected as the Sordar/Headman, would not be answerable or accountable to the respondent No. 2, as he came under the direct supervision of the respondent No. 5 who is the Lyngdoh of Ri-Wahlang. This being the situation, whereby the very basis of the authority of the Respondent No.2 was questioned, the writ petitioner has approached this Court by way of this instant writ petition assailing the impugned order. This Court then by the order dated 15.12.2020, as an interim measure kept the impugned order in abeyance. 5. Mr. H.L. Shangreiso, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. P. Dohkrut, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the crux of the matter is that the Ri-Lyngdoh Wahlang 9 Kyntoit is a separate entity, and not under the administration or control of the Respondent No. 2, Syiem of Nongspung. The learned Senior Counsel submits the petitioner's appointment is by virtue of the Sanad issued by the respondent No. 5 the Lyngdoh Ri-Lyngdoh Wahlang 9 Kyntoit, and not from the respondent No. 2 (Chief of Hima Nongspung Syiemship), and further submits that by the operation of customary practices, the respondent No. 2 has no jurisdiction to issue show cause, entertain complaints or to issue the impugned order suspending the writ petitioner. 6. 6. The learned Senior counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to an order dated 15.01.2002 (Annexure-3) passed by the Respondent No.4, Executive Committee, KHADC, which he asserts, recognition has been accorded by the said respondent, to the functions and status of the Ri-Lyngdoh Wahlang 9 Kyntoit as a separate entity and not under Nongspung Syiemship. He lastly submits that the impugned order therefore being passed without authority, is non est in law and liable to be interfered with by this Court. 7. Mr. V.G.K. Kynta, learned Senior counsel assisted by Ms. G. Kynta, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 and 4, in reply to the submissions made by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that it is not a fact that Ri-Lyngdoh Wahlang 9 Kyntoit does not come under the supervision and administration of the respondent No. 2, or that it is not an area under Nongspung Syiemship. To elaborate on this point, he submits that in the system of traditional administration of Elakas in the Khasi Syiemships, provision is there for such entities, and Ri-Lyngdoh Wahlang 9 Kyntoit, is at the intermediate level between the Durbar of the Syiem and the village durbar. The learned Senior counsel has further placed Section 2 (i) of the United Khasi Jaintia Hills Autonomous District (Appointment and Succession of Chiefs and Headmen) Act, 1959, and submits that Ri-Lyngdoh Wahlang 9 Kyntoit, is not specified nor shown in the Appendix to the Act, which contains the list of Elakas and as such cannot claim to be a separate Elaka. He lastly submits that the instant petition before this Court is premature, inasmuch as, such matters can be well addressed by way of a Political Appeal before the Respondent No. 4, Executive Committee, Khasi Hills Autonomous District Council. 8. Mr. T.T. Diengdoh, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. C.C.T. Sangma, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 and 2, supports the submissions made by learned Senior counsel for the respondent District Council and submits that, though Ri-Lyngdoh Wahlang 9 Kyntoit by custom possesses the right to have its own Dorbar for the area concerned, a right that has been recognized, however, it is part and parcel of Nongspung Syiemship and not a separate entity as claimed. Learned Senior counsel further submits that in the prevalent system of traditional administration in Nongspung Syiemship, the Ri-Lyngdoh Wahlang 9 Kyntoit Dorbar has the right to administer and manage its affairs in its area, however, the same was to be without usurping the right of the Dorbar of the Syiem (Respondent No. 2). He further submits that the fact that the petitioner had annexed the appointment letter (Sanad) dated 20.08.2019 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) reflects that the petitioner accepts and acknowledges the status of respondent No. 2, as a superior authority. The learned senior counsel further contends that the very fact that the respondent No. 4 had directed issuance of the Sanad to the petitioner by the Respondent No.2, clearly indicates the supervisory control exercised by the Syiem, Respondent No. 2 over this area. He concludes his submissions by submitting that the contention of the petitioners that Ri-Lyngdoh Wahlang 9 Kyntoit is a distinct entity, is therefore not supported by either the facts or materials as placed. 9. Mr. H. Abraham, learned counsel for the respondent No. 5 and 6 and the Petitioner in WP(C) No. 132 of 2021, adopts the submissions made by the learned Senior counsel for the writ petitioner, but on a query from the Court is unable to show that he himself, the Respondent No. 5, Lyngdoh of Ri-Lyngdoh Wahlang 9 Kyntoit has received a direct appointment order (Sanad) from the District Council which would go to establish the fact that Ri-Lyngdoh Wahlang 9 Kyntoit is a separate Elaka. 10. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on examination of the materials as placed, the only pertinent issue to be decided to the mind of the Court, is whether the writ petitions are maintainable at this stage, due to the availability of appellate remedy against the impugned order. From the stand of the petitioner, it is clear that it is his reluctance to accept the respondent No. 2 to be the higher authority over the administration of Ri-Lyngdoh Wahlang 9 Kyntoit, that prompted him to approach this Court, whereas the respondents' stand is that the Syiem and Durbar of Nongspung exercises supervisory control by virtue of being a higher Dorbar over the Dorbar of Ri-Lyngdoh Wahlang 9 Kyntoit. 11. In the system of traditional and customary administration in the Khasi Syiemships, the final authority used to be the Chief/Syiem and Durbar. 11. In the system of traditional and customary administration in the Khasi Syiemships, the final authority used to be the Chief/Syiem and Durbar. However, after the advent of British Rule and thereafter on independence, with the constitution of the District Council, as a body under the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution of India, vested with powers of regulation and control of such traditional institutions, orders of dismissal, suspension, removal or otherwise or matters connected with village disputes, passed by the Syiem and Durbar, were brought by way of a Political Appeal before the Executive Committee, Khasi Hills District Council which, as a quasi-judicial appellate authority decided such matters. 12. In the instant case, it is apparent and appears that, as the jurisdiction, of the Respondent No.2 (Syiem) has been questioned by the writ petitioners, they felt that their interest would be best served if they approach this Court directly by ignoring the ladder of appeal and have seemingly ignored the aspect that the Respondent No. 4, is also competent to rule on the point of jurisdiction, or to render any further findings. 13. This being the situation, wherein there is an appellate authority in place, to decide such matters, these writ petitions are held be not maintainable at this stage, due to the availability of a regular appellate forum. 14. Accordingly, both the writ petitions are dismissed and disposed of, leaving the writ petitioners to seek alternate remedy as discussed above. 15. Interim orders passed earlier stand vacated. 16. There shall no order as to cost.