MC(WPC)/51/2024 of KALBEN SANGMA Vs JINGSANG MARAK AND 3 ORS. on 12 August 2024

Serial No.05 Regular List

HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYAAT SHILLONG

MC[WP(C)] No. 51 of 2024 inWP(C) No. 412 of 2016 Date of Order: 12.08.2024

3. The Chief Executive Member,Garo Hills Autonomous DistrictCouncil, Tura, West Garo Hills District, Meghalaya.

4. The Executive Member, I/c Land,Revenue, etc, Garo Hills AutonomousDistrict Council, Tura, West GaroHills District, Meghalaya.….Opposite parties.

Coram:

Hon’ble Mr. Justice B. Bhattacharjee, Judge Ms. E.G.S. War, Adv. (R: - 1) Mr. S. Dey, Adv. (R: 2 – 4)

ORAL:-

Heard Mr. P. Nongbri, learned Counsel appearing for the applicant, Mr.J. M. Thangkhiew, learned Counsel appearing for the Opposite Party No.1and also Ms. N. Rajee, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents No.2 –4.

This is an application for recalling of the order dated 16-07-2018passed by this Court whereby an order of ex-parte proceeding was madeagainst the applicant herein.

The learned Counsel for the applicant submits that there was acommunication gap between the applicant and his appointed lawyer who wasrepresenting him at the point of time when the order dated 16-07-2018 waspassed. He further submits that even after passing of the order, new sets oflawyer appointed by the applicant, have taken part in the proceeding of thewrit petition until 22-03-2024 when the Counsel for the opposite part No. 1pointed out to the Court about the existence of the order dated 16-07-2018. Itis the submission of the learned Counsel that the applicant had no intention tocommit default of any kind and he is very much interested to contest the writpetition. He submits that the passing of the order dated 16-07-2018 was anoutcome of communication gap and the situation was beyond the control ofthe applicant. The Learned Counsel prays that the order dated 16-07-2018 berecalled and the applicant may be given a chance to take part in the furtherproceeding of the writ petition.

The learned Counsel for the Opposite Party No.1 has objected to theapplication on the ground that the applicant should have been vigilant aboutthe passing of the order of this Court. He has also pointed out to the averments made in the paragraphs No.6 & 7 of the application and submittedthat these averments go to show the existence of blameworthy conduct of theapplicant and, in such a situation, the application for recalling the order dated16-07-2018 deserves to be rejected.

A perural of the order-sheet of the writ petition reveals that theapplicant was represented by a different set of Counsels at the point of timewhen the order dated 16-07-2018 was passed on the basis of the submissionmade on behalf of the applicant. However, a further perusal of the latterorders of the case record of the writ petition reveal that the applicant waspresent in all the subsequent dates and his presence was also recorded in allthe orders. The aforesaid fact reveals that though the applicant might havelost contact with his lawyers at certain point of time but thereafter have notdefaulted in his appearance and has been showing his keen interest to contestthe matter. Taking into consideration the interest of the applicant to contestthe matter and for ends of justice, it is deemed appropriate to recall the orderdated 16-07-2018.

Accordingly, the order dated 16-07-2018 is hereby recalled. Theapplicant is allowed to take part in the proceeding of the WP(C) No.412 of2016.

The application stands allowed.

Judge

Meghalaya12.08.2024“Biswarup PS”