THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM v. The State of AP and 2 Others

BEFORE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH Date : 24-08-2022 ORDER Heard Ms. N. Danggen, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, Mr.Y.Riram, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and Mr. G.Sangma, the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 3.

This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 17/2/2021, whereby the Deputy Commissioner, Kra Daadi District in exercise of the powers under Regulation 38 of the Assam Frontier (Administration of Justice) Regulation 1945(for short the Regulation of 1945) had referred the dispute before the MEL at AGAP Hall Palin Kra Daadi District for amicable settlement. A further perusal of the order dated 17/2/2021 which has been impugned in the instant proceedings shows that various HGBs/GBs of Palin Circle were appointed as arbitrators to take up the marriage dispute in accordance with prevailing Nyishi Customary Law for amicable settlement of the case. The said order dated 17/2/2021 was put to challenge by the Petitioner herein by way of the instant petition and this Court vide order dated 21/5/2021 had issued notice and till the returnable date, the operation of the impugned order dated 17/2/2021 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Kra Daadi District was suspended. The said impugned order has been continuing from time to time.

At this stage, it may be relevant to take note of that pursuant to the said impugned order, the Arunachal Pradesh Civil Courts Act,2021 was enacted and which has come into force w.e.f. 12/4/2021. On coming into effect of the said Page No.# 3/4 Arunachal Pradesh Civil Courts Act,2021, there has been various amendments to the Assam Frontier (Administration of Justice) Regulation 1945 whereby various provisions were deleted by virtue of Section 27 of the said Act of 2021. Relevant to take note of that as per Section 27(vi), Sections 37, 38 and 39 have been deleted. In view of the deletion of Section 38 and the stay order being passed by this Court on 25/2/2021 to the said proceedings, the question of going ahead with the arbitration in respect to the dispute between the Petitioner and the Respondent No. 3 does not arise. It has also been submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner that even a perusal of Regulation 38 would show that a party can be sent to arbitration only with the consent and this aspect of the matter would be further clear from the reading of the said provisions inasmuch as the constitution of the arbitrators have to be by persons nominated by each of the parties. On that basis also, the learned counsel submitted that the question of unilaterally sending the parties to arbitration by exercising the power under Regulation 38 is on the face of it contrary to the provisions of the Regulation.

Taking into consideration that the dispute between the Petitioner and the Respondent No. 3 as would appear is a dispute relating to the return of bridal price which in view of Section 27(vi) of Arunachal Pradesh Civil Courts Act, 2021 cannot be now decided by the arbitrators as appointed vide the order dated 17/2/2021, this Court therefore, quashes the said order dated 17/2/2021 leaving the parties to avail the remedy as available under the provisions of the Arunachal Pradesh Civil Courts Act, 2021 and the Regulation as amended by the said Act of 2021.

It is made clear that this Court in view of the amendment being brought to the Regulation by the Arunachal Pradesh Civil Courts Act, 2021 has not gone Page No.# 4/4 into the merits of the case and as such the above observations should not in any manner be construed as observations relating to the merits of the case. The Petitioner and the private respondents shall be at liberty to raise all issues on facts including that the wife of the Petitioner had divorced the son of the Respondent.

With the above observations and directions, the petition stands disposed off. JUDGE Comparing Assistant