Meghalaya High Court
MC(WPC)/172/2026 of SAHITBOR DIENGNGAN Vs MESSINGLAND SOHSHANG AND ORS. on 13 July 2026
No. 19 Regular List HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA AT SHILLONG MC(WPC) No. 172 of 2026 In WP(C) No. 25 of 2026 Date of Decision: 13.07.2026 Shri. Sahitbor Diengngan S/o Kostar Dkhardewsaw :::Applicant -Vs- 1.Shri. Messingland Sohshang Aged 27 years old S/o Tombimar Marwein R/o 141, Upper Laitkesh, PO
Serial No. 19
Regular List
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG
MC(WPC) No. 172 of 2026
In WP(C) No. 25 of 2026
Date of Decision: 13.07.2026
Shri. Sahitbor Diengngan
S/o Kostar Dkhardewsaw
:::Applicant
-Vs-
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Shri. Messingland Sohshang Aged 27 years old S/o Tombimar Marwein R/o 141, Upper Laitkesh, PO Nongstoin, West Khasi Hills, Meghalaya 793119
2. The Government of Meghalaya Through the Chief Secretary
3. The Superintendent of Police, Nongstoin, West Khasi Hills, Meghalaya
4. The Officer-in- Charge, Nongstoin Police Station, West Khasi Hills Meghalaya
:::Opposite Parties
Coram:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice H. S. Thangkhiew, Judge Appearance:
For the Petitioner/Applicant(s) : Mr. S. Marpan, Adv.
For the Respondent(s) : Ms. O.A.I. Bang, Adv. (For R 1)
Ms. S. Laloo, GA. (For R 2-3)
i) Whether approved for reporting in
Yes/No
Law journals etc.: ii) Whether approved for publication in press:
Yes/No Oral:
1. Seen the objection filed by the writ petitioner for striking off and deleting the name of the respondent No. 4 in the main writ petition.
2. Mr. S. Marpan, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the job held by the respondent No. 4 is transferrable, and there is no necessity in impleading him by name, and infact, will be beneficial to the case of the writ petitioner, in the event he is transferred from the present post.
3. Ms. O.A.I. Bang, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1/Opposite Party (Petitioner in the main case) however has vehemently objected and submitted that the said respondent has been impleaded by name, in view of the fact that inspite of personal interaction with him with regard to the addition of certain beneficiaries to the bank account of the petitioner, the said officer had not taken any proactive action, which has resulted in grave loss being caused to the writ petitioner. She therefore submits that the application for striking off the name of the respondent No. 4 be disallowed.
4. This Court on hearing the submissions of the parties, and also the objection raised by the writ petitioner, and as the matter deserves further consideration on the culpability and liability of the said respondent in person or by office, at this stage, rejects the Misc. Application.
5. Misc. Application is accordingly closed and disposed of.
Judge
Meghalaya 13.07.2026 “D.Thabah-PS”
Digitally signed by DARIHUN THABAH Date: 2026.07.13 16:55:42 IST Signature Not Verified