Meghalaya High Court

WP(C)/176/2026 of RISTARLAND CHYNE Vs KHASI HILLS AUTONOMOUS DISTRICT COUNCIL (KHADC) AND ORS. on 12 June 2026

Cites 0, Cited by 0

No.24 Regular List HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA AT SHILLONG WP(C). No. 176 of 2026 Date of Decision: 12.06.2026 Shri.Ristarland Chyne S/o (L) Smti D.Chyne, Resident of Sohlap, Shella Village, East Khasi Hills District, Meghalaya. …Petitioner -Versus- 1. Khasi Hills Autonomous District Council

Serial No.24

Regular List

HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA

AT SHILLONG

WP(C). No. 176 of 2026

Date of Decision: 12.06.2026

Shri.Ristarland Chyne

S/o (L) Smti D.Chyne,

Resident of Sohlap, Shella Village,

East Khasi Hills District, Meghalaya.

…Petitioner

-Versus-

Citations and Judicial Treatment

No citing decisions in the index yet

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…

1. Khasi Hills Autonomous District Council (KHADC), represented by; The Secretary, Executive Committee, Shillong, Meghalaya.

2. Wahadadar, Shella Confederacy, Shella, P.O.Shella, P.S. Shella, East Khasi Hills District.

3. Dorbar Shnong Shella, Represented by its Secretary, Shella Village, P.O.Shella, P.S. Shella, East Khasi Hills District.

…Respondents

Coram:

Hon’ble Mr. Justice H.S.Thangkhiew, Judge

Appearance: For the Petitioner/Applicant(s) : Mr. K.Ch. Gautam, Adv.

Ms. C.B.Sawain, Adv.

For the Respondent(s)

: Ms. D.Lyngdoh, Adv. vice

Ms. O.A.I.Bang, Adv. for R 1.

Mr. R.K.Synrem, Adv. for R 2.

Mr. C.C.T.Sangma, Adv. for R 3.

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. Mr. C.C.T.Sangma, learned counsel has entered appearance today on behalf of the respondent No. 3, as such, notice is complete on behalf of all the respondents.

2. It is noted that the petitioner herein who is a Member of the Shella Village Court was removed based on a Resolution dated 30-03-2026, which was intimated to the Village Court on 10-04-2026.

3. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner submits that the writ petitioner’s removal from the Village Court was without following due process, inasmuch as, he was not given a chance to be heard before the said Resolution was passed.

4. Mr. C.C.T.Sangma, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 i.e. the Secretary of Shella Village Dorbar, has submitted that as this is apparent, the impugned order will be recalled by the respondents No. 3 and the matter be closed.

5. Mr. R.K.Synrem, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 has also endorsed the submissions made by the respondent No. 3, with regard to the fact that the writ petitioner had not been given opportunity of hearing before the Resolution was passed.

6. Though Ms. D.Lyngdoh, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 prays that she may be allowed to file affidavit, it appears that in the circumstances, the same is not necessary.

7. Accordingly, in view of the submissions made by the respondents No. 2 & 3, and without prolonging the matter to await the withdrawal of the impugned Resolution and order by the respondent No. 3, the impugned orders are quashed and set aside, and the matter is closed and disposed of.

Judge

Digitally signed by SAMANTHA ANNA LIYA RYNJAH Date: 2026.06.12 18:34:22 IST Signature Not Verified

You have used today's free searches. Sign in, for free, to keep searching without a limit.

Compass reads the judgments for you and finds the paragraphs for and against your question. Sign in to use it.

My Vault follows judgments for you and records every later decision that cites them. Sign in to keep one.

Sign in to download the court's PDF. The full text stays free to read here.

Sign in, for free, to download the court copy. Reading the full text here stays open to everyone.

Search and read Indian judgments without limits, save them to My Vault and find the relevant paragraphs with Compass.

Open the sign-in page instead