Meghalaya High Court
PIL/12/2025 of TOKYO R. MARAK Vs THE STATE OF MEGHALAYA AND 4 ORS. on 28 October 2025
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA AT SHILLONG PIL No. 12 of 2025 Date of order: 28.10.2025 Tokyo R. Marak …Petitioner - versus - 1. The State of Meghalaya through its Chief Secretary. 2. The Commissioner and Secretary, Department of District Council Affairs, Govt. of Meghalaya. 3. The Garo Hills
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG
PIL No. 12 of 2025
Date of order: 28.10.2025
Tokyo R. Marak
…Petitioner
- 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. The State of Meghalaya through its Chief Secretary.
2. The Commissioner and Secretary, Department of District Council Affairs, Govt. of Meghalaya.
3. The Garo Hills Autonomous District Council (GHADC) through its Chief Executive Member, Tura.
4. The Secretary, Executive Committee, Garo Hills Autonomous District Council (GHADC), Tura.
5. The Non-Gazetted Employees Association (NGEA) of the Garo Hills Autonomous District Council through its President. …Respondents
Coram:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Soumen Sen, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Justice W. Diengdoh, Judge
Appearance: For the Petitioners : Mr K.C. Gautam, Adv.
For the Respondents : Ms R. Colney, GA [for R 1&2]
Mr S. Dey, Adv. with
Mr S. Deb, Adv. [for R3&4]
Mr P.T. Sangma, Adv. [for R5]
Serial No. 01 Daily List 2025:MLHC:1020-DB
i) Whether approved for
Yes/No
reporting in Law journals etc.:
ii) Whether approved for publication Yes/No
in press: Note: For proper public information and transparency, any media reporting this judgment is directed to mention the composition of the bench by name of judges, while reporting this judgment/order.
JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble, the Chief Justice) (Oral)
We have heard been informed that normalcy has been restored in the functioning of the District Council.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 5 has submitted that they are not disrupting the functioning of the District Council and they have assured that they shall not in any manner disrupt the normal functioning of the District Council.
In view thereof, the public interest litigation stands disposed of.
(W. Diengdoh) (Soumen Sen)
Judge Chief Justice
2025:MLHC:1020-DB Digitally signed by SYLVANA LIZ KHARBHIH Date: 2025.10.28 18:00:56 IST Signature Not Verified