WP(C)/337/2026 of CLARISSA JORDANA AND ORS. Vs THE STATE OF MEGHALAYA AND ORS. on 27 July 2026

1. Smti Clarissa Jordana Sohtun

2. Smti Shaiti Syiemlieh.

3. Smti Dira Lyngkhoi

4. Smti Magrita Nongrum

5. Smti Ryngkatlang Shylla

6. Smti Ibandarishisha Bani

7. Shri Skandin Kharshiing,

8. Smti Roi Sohtun

9. Smti Shmidalin Khongsit

10. Smti Trilinda Sahbong

11. Smti Bilinda Hujon

12. Smti Trenita N. Marak.

13. Smti Ritha Sangma

14. Shri John Robert Kharkrang

15. Smti Taralin Marwein,

16. Iulis Marbaniang

17. Smti Phrinda Suting

18. Smti Belin Marbaniang

19. Smti Pdiangsuklang Wahlang

20. Smti Swiansina Kharsyntiew

21. Shri Seningstar Kharhunai

22. Shri Dolar Thongni

23. Smti Mesina Khyllait

24. Shri Robasstar Kurbah

25. Smti Damary Sohtun

26. Smti Sharailin Jyrwa

27. Smti Melinda Hashah

28. Shri Bankersharai Sohtun

29. Shri Ebenezer Warjri

30. Smti Sarlin Marwein

31. Smti Makrisha Kharkongor

32. Smti Kyntiewbhalin Lyngdoh.

33. Shri Banteilang L. Khingsngi

34. Shri Rangdajied Nongrum

35. Smti Dephina Marwein

… Petitioner(s) Versus

1. State of Meghalaya represented by The Chief Secretary, Government of Meghalaya.

2. The Commissioner & Secretary, Urban Affairs Department, Government of Meghalaya, Shillong.

3. The Deputy Commissioner, East Khasi Hills District, Shillong, Meghalaya

4. The Shillong Municipal Board represented by its Chief Executive Officer, Shillong

5. The Superintendent of Police, East Khasi Hills, Meghalaya

6. The Town Vending Committee, (TVC) Shillong, East Khasi Hills, Meghalaya … Respondent(s)

Coram:

Hon’ble Mr. Justice H. S. Thangkhiew, Judge Appearance: For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. M.F. Qureshi, Adv. with

Mr. L. Koch, Adv.

For the Respondent(s) : Mr. S. Dey, Adv. (For R 4)

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. The petitioners herein who claim to be roadside vendors in the stretch from Jail Road to Polo Towers have prayed for restraining orders against their removal by the authorities.

2. Mr. S. Dey, learned counsel who is present on behalf of the Shillong Municipal Board (respondent No. 4), submits that the matter concerning the vendors is substantially before the Division Bench of this Court, and that the petitioners may file appropriate applications before the said Division Bench.

3. Mr. M.F. Qureshi, learned counsel for the petitioners has however resisted the suggestion of the learned counsel for the respondent No. 4, and submits that the vendors in question are on a different footing, and prays for some protection.

4. This Court on hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on examination of the materials available notes that the petitioners apart from claiming to be the roadside vendors in the said stretch have not annexed any materials to substantiate their case.

5. Be that as it may, as the matter concerns roadside vendors, where the same issue is pending consideration before a Division Bench of this Court, this writ petition is not entertained and the same is disposed of by allowing the petitioners the liberty to put in appropriate applications in the main matter, pending before the Division Bench, if so advised.

6. As ordered above, the matter stands closed and is accordingly disposed of.

JUDGE

Meghalaya 27.07.2026 “V. Lyndem-AR-PS”

Digitally signed by VALENTINO LYNDEM Date: 2026.07.28 14:06:18 IST Signature Not Verified