Review Pet/20/2025 of SHARIFUL ISLAM Vs STATE OF MEGHALAYA AND 6 ORS. on 17 August 2026

1. The State of Meghalaya represented by The Commissioner & Secretary, Community & Rural Development Government of Meghalaya.

2. Additional Mission Director, State Rural Employment Society, Meghalaya, Shillong

3. The Deputy Commissioner and District Programme Co-ordinator, MGNREGS, Tura

3. The BDO and Programme Officer MGNREGS, Demdema C&RD Block, West Garo Hills.

5. Smti Husneara Khatum, R/o Khetadhowa, West Garo Hills District, Meghalaya (President of Khetadhowa VEC)

6. Smti Mousumi Begum, R/o Khetadhowa, West Garo Hills District, Meghalaya (Secretary of Khetadhowa VEC)

7. Smti Halima Khatun, R/o Khetadhowa, West Garo Hills District, Meghalaya (Women Member of Khetadhowa VEC) … Respondent(s)

_________________________________________________________

Coram:

Hon’ble Mr. Justice H. S. Thangkhiew, Judge Appearance: For the Review Petitioner(s) : Mr. P.T. Sangma, Adv.

For the Respondent(s) : Mr. N.D. Chullai, AAG with

Mr. E.R. Chyne, GA (For R 1-4)

Ms. M. Rahman, Adv. (For R 5-7)

i) Whether approved for reporting in

Yes/No

Law journals etc:

ii) Whether approved for publication

Yes/No

in press: JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)

1. Heard Mr. P.T. Sangma, learned counsel for the review petitioner, Mr. N.D. Chullai, learned AAG assisted by Mr. E.R. Chyne, learned GA for the respondents Nos. 1 to 4. Also heard Ms. M. Rahman, learned counsel for the respondents Nos. 5, 6 & 7.

2. This Review application has been preferred by the review petitioner for review of the order dated 17.10.2025, passed in WP(C) No. 27 of 2025.

3. Mr. P.T. Sangma, learned counsel for the review petitioner submits that the dismissal was only on the ground of locus, wherein it was held that the petitioner was not a resident of the concerned Village i.e. Khetadhowa, West Garo Hills District. The learned counsel has taken this Court to the Birth Certificate and to other testimonials to show that the petitioner is vitally interest and a resident of Khetadhowa Village. He therefore, prays that the Review application be allowed, and the writ petition be heard on merits.

4. Mr. N.D. Chullai, learned AAG assisted by Mr. E.R. Chyne, learned GA for the respondents Nos. 1 to 4, in reply has submitted that in the course of the writ petition, the pointed objection had been raised by the respondents Nos. 5, 6 & 7, in the affidavit filed at Para-4, that the petitioner was not a resident of Khetadhowa Village. In reply with regard to the locus, he submits that the writ petitioner in the rejoinder affidavit had made no averments on this point, that is now being sought to be brought before the Court in Review. He therefore, submits that no ground for review has been made out, and the same is liable to be dismissed.

5. Ms. M. Rahman, learned counsel for the respondents Nos. 5, 6 & 7, has also adopted the submissions made by the learned AAG.

6. This Court on hearing the learned counsel for the parties notes that the same is a review application, wherein the scope is limited. A perusal of the materials shows that the review petitioner had ample opportunity in the course of the writ petition, and was also in possession of the information, which he is seeking to bring before the Court today.

7. In this view of the matter, as no ground for review has been made out, the Review application is accordingly dismissed.

JUDGE

Meghalaya 17.08.2026 “V. Lyndem-AR-PS”

2026:MLHC:897 Digitally signed by VALENTINO LYNDEM Date: 2026.08.18 10:20:35 IST Signature Not Verified