Meghalaya High Court
MC(WPC)/98/2026 of ABHISHEK GUPTA Vs STATE OF MEGHALAYA AND ORS. on 10 April 2026
Serial No. 32 Regular List HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA AT SHILLONG MC(WPC) No. 98 of 2026 in WP(C) No. 133 of 2025 Date of Decision: 10.04.2026 Shri Abhishek Gupta, S/o (L) Hare Krishna Prasad Gupta, R/o Near Tura Masjid, Tura Bazaar, West Garo Hills District, Meghalaya ….
Serial No. 32
Regular List
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG
MC(WPC) No. 98 of 2026 in
WP(C) No. 133 of 2025
Date of Decision: 10.04.2026
Shri Abhishek Gupta,
S/o (L) Hare Krishna Prasad Gupta,
R/o Near Tura Masjid, Tura Bazaar,
West Garo Hills District, Meghalaya …. Petitioner(s)/Applicant(s)
Versus
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. State of Meghalaya represented by its Chief Secretary, Government of Meghalaya.
2. Secretary, Department of Home, Government of Meghalaya.
3. Secretary, Department of Health, Government of Meghalaya
4. Director General of Police, Meghalaya
5. Sub-Inspector, Shri Patrick S. Sangma Investigating Officer in Bajengdoba, P.S. Case No. 14 of 2024, Bajengdoba Police Station, North Garo Hills District, Meghalaya
…. Respondent(s)
Coram:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice H. S. Thangkhiew, Judge Appearance: For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. R. Kharkrang, Adv.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. N.D. Chullai, AAG with
Ms. Z.E. Nongkynrih, GA
2026:MLHC:329
_________________________________________________________ i) Whether approved for reporting in
Yes/No
Law journals etc:
ii) Whether approved for publication
Yes/No
in press: (ORAL)
1. It is noted that pursuant to the order dated 24.03.2026, the learned counsel for the petitioner/applicant has made the necessary corrections in the Cause Title, for impleadment of necessary parties.
2. Mr. R. Kharkrang, learned counsel for the petitioner/applicant submits that the Officer-in-Charge Bajengdoba Police Station is a necessary party, inasmuch as, he is the in-charge of maintaining the upkeep and function of the CCTV surveillance system within the Police Station where the alleged violation is stated to have taken place.
3. A prayer has also been made for impleadment of the Commissioner & Secretary, Power Department, as a necessary party.
4. The same is not objected by the learned AAG, for the respondents.
5. Accordingly, the Officer-in-Charge Bajengdoba Police Station and the Commissioner & Secretary, Power Department are impleaded as respondents Nos. 6 & 7, in the main writ petition. Registry to make the necessary corrections in the Cause Title.
6. Misc. Case is allowed and stands disposed of.
JUDGE
Meghalaya 10.04.2026 “V. Lyndem-PS”
2026:MLHC:329 Digitally signed by VALENTINO LYNDEM Date: 2026.04.15 11:43:29 IST Signature Not Verified