WA/1/2025 of CRAIG ALAN LYNGDOH Vs THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE DORBAR SHNONG MAWNGAP KHLIEHSHNONG AND 2 OTHERS on 10 January 2025

1. The Executive Committee,

Dorbar Shnong Mawngap KhliehshnongRepresented by the Executive Member,Shri. Phimonstar Shylla,R/o Mawngap KhliehshnongMawphlang Lyngdohship,East Khasi Hills District, Meghalaya

…...Respondent

2. Khasi Hills Autonomous District Council Represented by its Secretary,Shillong, East Khasi Hills District,Meghalaya

3. Shri. Osterlan Khyriem

(Acting Headman Mawngap Khliehshnong)

Aged about 46 yearsR/o East Khasi Hills District,Meghalaya

4. Shri. Khamborlang Kharchandi,

(Ex-Headman, Mawngap Khliehshnong)

Son of Smti KharshandiAged About 46 yearsR/o East Khasi Hills District,Meghalaya.

….Proforma Respondents

Coram:

Hon’ble Mr. Justice W. Diengdoh, JudgeHon’ble Mr. Justice B. Bhattacharjee, Judge Appearance:

ORDER (ORAL)

Per W. Diengdoh, (J):

1. The order dated 16.12.2024 passed in WP(C) No. 349 of 2024by a Single Bench of this Court has been assailed in this instant appeal.

2. Heard Mr. H.R. Nath, learned counsel for the appellant who inbrief, has submitted that the appellant is the Lyngdoh (Chief) of theMawphlang Lyngdohship (Hima).

3. A dispute has arisen with regard to the village MawngapKhliehshnong of the said Hima wherein the Headman of the said villagewas removed from office and in his place an Acting Headman wasappointed in due process.

4. It is also the submission of the learned counsel that in duecourse a writ petition was filed before this Court by an entity called ‘Ka Sur Na Ki Nongshong Shnong’ primarily challenging the removal of thethen Headman of the Hima. This petition was disposed of by this Courtwith relevant directions to the Executive Committee of the Khasi HillsAutonomous District Council (KHADC).

5. The District Council pursuant to the said order of this Court haddirected the erstwhile Headman who was removed from office to file aformal appeal before the Hima. However, the said Headman has failed tocomply with the order. Thereafter, another writ petition was filed by therespondent No. 1 herein espousing the same cause, that is, the cause ofthe Headman who was since removed from office. The writ petitionnumbered as WP(C) No. 349 of 2024 was disposed of by the learnedSingle Judge vide the impugned order herein.

6. The crux of the matter herein is with regard to the holding of afresh election for the office of Headman of Mawngap Khliehshnongvillage.

7. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant thatthe learned Single Judge in the impugned order has misconstrued thesubmission made before this Court to observe that the Chief of the HimaMawphlang is unable to conduct the election in the near future and assuch, taking recourse to Section 7(iii) of the United Khasi-Jaintia HillsAutonomous District (Appointment and Succession of Chiefs andHeadmen) Act, 1959 had instead, directed the Executive Committee ofthe KHADC to conduct the said election within 1(one) month.

8. The learned counsel has further submitted that the casepresented before the learned Single Judge as far as the conduct of thesaid election is concerned is that due to the death of the Myntri of thesaid Hima, the process could not be conducted immediately for which some time is sought for. However it is not admitted by the Hima that theelection could not be held at all. In this backdrop, the learned counsel forthe appellant has submitted that the Hima is now ready and prepared toconduct the said election within the time frame given by this Court andas such, the impugned order may be set aside or modified accordingly toallow the Hima to conduct the said election.

9. Mr. V.G.K. Kynta, learned Sr. counsel who appears as theSpecial Counsel of the respondent No. 2/KHADC alongwith Ms. C.Nongkhlaw, learned counsel has submitted that in all fairness, theExecutive Committee of the KHADC has no objection to the prayermade by the appellant and under the circumstances would prefer that theelection be conducted by the appellant herein.

10. Mr. S.R. Lyngdoh, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 hasalso submitted that on instruction, the main concern of the respondentNo. 1 is for the election to be conducted as early as possible so that therewill be no disruption of the democratic process as far as the election ofthe Headman of the said village is concerned. In essence, the respondentNo. 1 has also no objection to the prayer made by the learned counsel forthe appellant herein.

11. This Court has given considerable thought to the submissionmade by the parties and has also perused the impugned order. Nothingwrong is found therein, but for the concession made by the respectiveparties herein, therefore this Court would confine itself only to therelevant submission made, that is, with regard to the conduct of theelection of the Headman of Mawngap Khliehshnong.

12. It is true that under the provision of Section 7(i) of the said Actof 1959 the election of Headman is to be conducted by the Chief and his Durbar and the provision of Section 7(iii) is only an enabling provisionto allow the process of election of Headman by the Executive Committeeitself in case of the inability of the Chief and his Durbar to do so. At thispoint of time, it appears that all the parties are in agreement that theelection ought to be conducted by the Chief and his Durbar.

13. The admission of the respondent/KHADC though contrary towhat had been submitted before the learned Single Judge would beaccepted by this Court taking into account the entire facts andcircumstances of this case. Even the admission by respondent No. 1 whois the writ petitioner, inasmuch as this respondent too has no objection tothe election to be conducted by the appellant herein is duly noted.

14. This Court would therefore allow the prayer made in this appealto the extent that the relevant observations at para 6 of the impugnedorder be modified effectively.

15. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed to the extent that theoperation of the impugned order as directed at para 6 is hereby modifiedto read as follows:

“1. That the election to the post of Headman of MawngapKhliehshnong is to be conducted by the Chief and hisDurbar/appellant hearing in accordance with Section 7(i) of thesaid Act of 1959. The same is to be conducted within 1(one)month of receipt of certified copy of this order.

2. As agreed to by the parties, in the meantime during theprocess of election, the necessary documents, keys and othermaterials of the Headman which are now in possession of therespondent No. 1 herein are to be handed over to the Secretary of the Executive Committee, KHADC who will keep the samein safe possession and the same to be handed over to the newlyelected Headman in due course.”

16. In view of the above, this appeal is hereby disposed of. No costs.

17. Let copy of this order be issued upon the Secretary, ExecutiveCommittee, KHADC for compliance.

(B. Bhattacharjee) (W. Diengdoh)

Judge Judge