✦ High Court of India

Shri. Kondro K Ksanlah S/o (L) k Bidhan Roy Resident of Shella Village, Shella v. –

Case Details

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA WP(C ) No. 53 of 2012 Shri. Kondro K Ksanlah S/o (L) k Bidhan Roy Resident of Shella Village, Shella Confederacy, East Khasi Hills District. - versus – …… Petitioner 1. Khasi Hills Autonomous District Council. 2. Executive Committed, Khasi Hills, Autonomous District Council, Shillong through it Secretary. . 3. Executive Member i/c Elaka Administration etc. (East) Khasi Hills Autonomous District Council, Shillong. 4. Special Officer, Khasi Hills Autonomous District Council, Shillong. 5. Shella Village Dorbar through its Secretary (Respondent No. 6) Shella village, East Khasi Hills.

Legal Reasoning

6. Shri. Tobias Tiewdopt, Secretary Shella village Dorbar Shella, Shella Confederacy, East Khasi Hills District, Meghalaya. 7. Shri. Lurshai Chyne, Member Shella village Dorbar, Shella, Shella Confederacy, East Khasi Hills District, Meghalaya. 8. Shri. Darling Swet, Member Shella village Dorbar, Shella, Shella Confederacy, East Khasi Hills District, Meghalaya. …… Respondents BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SR SEN Advocate for the Petitioner Advocate for the Respondents Date of Hearing Date of Judgment and Order : : : : Mr. L Lyngdoh VGK Kynta Mr. BM Roy Dolloi Mr. BM Roy Chyne 27.11.2013 27.11.2013 No. WP (C) No. 53 of 2012 Page 1 of 5 JUDGMENT AND ORDER The petitioner’s case in nut shell is that, “an application for issuance of writ of mandamus and certiorari for quashing and setting the resolution dated 12.11.2011 passed by the village Dorbar of Shella ostracizing/excommunicating the petitioner from the village and order dated 16.1.2012 passed by the respondent No. 4 in refusing to entertain the political appeal of the petitioner against his ostracizing/excommunicating from the village. 2. The brief facts of the case is that petitioner in the Dorbar of Shella village that was held on 29.1.2010, the petitioner was elected as one of the representative of the village to represent Shella village to the Dorbar Hima of the Wahahdadar of Shella Confederacy and thereafter on 12.3.2010 the Dorbar Pyllun of Shella Confederacy was held and the petitioner was elected as one of the Executive Members of the Executive Dorbar of Shella Confederacy. In the Dorbar of Shella village that was held on 24.11.2010 the petitioner was removed as the representative of Shella village to the Dorbar Hima. Recently the petitioner was again elected as an Executive Member of the Executive Dorbar of Shella Confederacy and on 5.7.2011 the Executive Committee, Khasi Hills Autonomous District Council, Shillong was pleased to approve names of the newly elected Executive Member of the Executive Dorbar of the Shella Confederacy. 3. That on 22.04.2010, the Dorbar of Shella village was held for election of a new Headman. However, the election was proposed to be held contrary to the customary practice of Shella village during the proceedings the village elders put in strong objections to the same. Due to the strong objection, the election was postponed. However, on 10.05.2010 the Dorbar was again convened by the Dorbar of Shella village under the leadership of the respondent No. 6 for holding elections to the post of Headman of Shella and the same was without following the customs and practices as prevalent No. WP (C) No. 53 of 2012 Page 2 of 5 in Shella village resulting in a new Headman being elected in violation of all the customary practices of Shella village. 4. Being aggrieved with the election, majority of the villagers on 12.05.2010 lodged a complaint against the election of the new Headman before the Wahahdar of Shella Confederacy and the Wahahdar then summoned the members of the Dorbar of Shella Confederacy and the complainants on 27.08.2010 and on 24.09.2010. Surprisingly, on 27.09.1020 without hearing the parties the then Wahadadar, issued a sanad to the newly elected Headman. 5. Thereafter, on 29.09.2010, the Dorbar of Shella village under the leadership of the Respondent No. 6 was convened and the elders of the village who had lodged a complaint against the election were removed as elders of Shella village Dorbar and were suspended from being members for 3 years in a most illegal fashion and for the only reason that they had filed the complaint dated 12.05.2010. 6. On 12.11.2011, a Dorbar of Shella was convened by Shella Village Dorbar and on the basis of a purported report submitted by one Soutish Youroin, the suspended Wahadadar of Shella Confederacy, the petitioner was ostracized and ex-communicated and that too without furnishing copy of any complaint, without a chance being afforded to show cause and without hearing the petitioner. The petitioner immediately on coming to learn about the resolution dated 12.11.2011 passed by the Shella village Dorbar ostracizing the petitioner from the village, he then immediately on 14.11.2011 wrote a letter to the Acting Wahadadar of Shella Confederacy informing him about the same and to take necessary action accordingly. 7. The petitioner then by letter dated 18.11.2011 requested the respondents to supply copy of the report submitted by Shri. Soutish Youroin, agenda of the Dorbar that was held on 12.11.2011 and the No. WP (C) No. 53 of 2012 Page 3 of 5 resolution ostracizing the petitioner from the village by registered post along with a registered AD card and the same was duly received by the respondent No. 6 but till date the same was not supplied to the petitioner. 8. After receipt of the letter dated 18.11.2011 from the petitioner, the respondents then convened a Dorbar of Shella village on 28.11.2011 and resolved not to issue copy to the petitioner of the documents or order that was requested by him through his letter dated 18.11.2011. 9. Thereafter, the petitioner then preferred a political appeal before the respondent No. 1 who has the administrative control over these kind of matters as well as the village but surprisingly the respondent No. 1 through the respondent No. 4 by letter dated 16.01.12 refused to entertain the political appeal of the petitioner and instead directed the petitioner to approach a competent Civil Court, hence this petition.” 10. Mr. L Lyngdoh, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that, without any rhyme and reason the petitioner was ostracized/excommunicated from Shella village vide a resolution dated 12.11.11 passed by the respondents No. 5 to 8. Thereafter, the petitioner made many representations before the respondents seeking clarifications and reasons for his ostracized/excommunicated from the said village but the respondents remained silent. 11. Being aggrieved by the act of the respondents, the petitioner approached the District Council (i.e. respondent No. 2) who did not interfere with the decision of the dorbar. Being aggrieved by the activities of the dorbar and declination by the District Council Executive Committee to interfere with the matter, the petitioner approached this Court by way of this instant writ petition for necessary direction. 12. Mr. BM Roy, Dolloi and Mr. BM Roy Chyne, the learned counsel for the respondents No. 5 to 8 jointly submitted that, the No. WP (C) No. 53 of 2012 Page 4 of 5 petitioner was never ostracized/excommunicated from the village but he was simply barred to take part in the dorbar for life. 13. Mr. VGK Kynta, the learned counsel for the District Council has submitted that, the respondent No. 6 is no longer holding office, so he has no objection if the instant petition is allowed. 14. After hearing the submissions advanced by the learned counsel at bar, I am of the consider view that mistakes may be committed by anyone but it does not mean that it cannot be corrected. I am also of the opinion that, dorbar, rules or laws are made for the people and people are not made for the dorbar, rules or laws. If the dorbar is constituted for the wellbeing of the people, therefore, it is also the duty of the dorbar to see for the wellbeing of the people in general and to correct those who have committed wrong. Moreover, mere barring someone as member of the dorbar for life is not a solution, therefore, the respondents are directed to allow the petitioner to take part in the dorbar immediately and the petitioner is also directed to maintain a good behavior with the other members of the dorbar and to follow the rules and regulations of the dorbar. 15. Accordingly, the resolution dated 12.11.11 and letter dated 16.01.12 are hereby set aside. 16 With these observations and directions, the instant writ

Decision

petition is allowed and the matter stands disposed of. JUDGE V. Lyndem No. WP (C) No. 53 of 2012 Page 5 of 5

This is the original judgment text as indexed from the source corpus. Always verify against the official court record before relying on it in a filing — you can do so on eCourts or the Supreme Court of India website. ← Search more judgments