The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA WP (C) No. 90 of 2011 . . . Petitioner U Supervisor Khonglah Sordar Raid, Raid 6 Kur, Khyrim Syiemship, East Khasi Hills District -versus- 1. Khasi Hills Autonomous District Council, Shillong through its Secretary. 2. Executive Committee, Khasi Hills Autonomous District Council, Shillong. 3. Under Secretary, Khasi Hills Autonomous District Council, Shillong. 4. Shri K.K. Tangsong Chairman, Raid Shabong, Khyrim Syiemship 5. U Artist Dkhar Resident of Nonglyndiang Mawpran Village, Khyrim Syiemship. . . . Respondents BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SR SEN Advocate for the Petitioner :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. HS Thangkhiew Mr. P Nongbri. Advocate for the Respondent : Mr. VGK Kynta Date of Hearing Date of Judgment and Order : : 11.11.2013 11.11.2013 JUDGMENT AND ORDER (Oral) The instant petition is directed against the impugned order dated 7.09.07 passed by the learned Executive Committee of the District Council. WP(C) No. 90 of 2011 Page 1 of 5 2. The petitioner’s case in nutshell is that, the petitioner herein is the Sordar Raid, Raid Ri 6 Kur which falls within Khyrim Syiemship, East Khasi Hills District, Meghalaya Raid Ri 6 Kur is a Raid within Khyrim Syiemship since time immemorial and as customary practice offered U Blang and U Bhet to the Syiem of Hima Khyrim during Ka Pomblang Syiem which is the customary practice by all Raids within the Hima to partake in the religious practice of the Hima. The offering of U Blang and U Bhet signifies the political entity of a Raid within the Hima and that it felt directly under the administrative control of the Syiem. 3. However, in the 1800’s, Raid Ri 6 Kur had a fall out with the Syiem of Hima Khyrim due to which the Raid 6 Kur stopped offerings of U Blang and U Bhet to notionally symbolize their secession from Hima Khyrim. This led to Raid Ri 6 Kur being vulnerable without any protection from a higher authority and taking advantage of the situation. Raid Shabong forcibly exercised control over Raid Ri 6 Kur in the year 1875-1876. 4. Raid Ri 6 Kur found it difficult to conform to age old religious practices and decided within the Raid that they would return to Hima Khyrim and in the year 1883, the Raid Ri 6 Kur accordingly filed an application informing the then Deputy Commissioner, Khasi and Jaintia Hills, Shillong pledging their allegiance and return to the Syiem of Hima Khyrim. The application was accepted and vide order dated 12.01.1883 which was found in the documents of Political Case No. 114 of 1911, the then officiating Deputy Commissioner, Khasi and Jaintia Hills did not object to the same. 5. That the petitioner states that on being united with Hima Khyrim again, the Raid Ri 6 Kur resumed with the customary practice of offering U Blang and U Bhet to the Syiem of Hima Khyrim on Ka WP(C) No. 90 of 2011 Page 2 of 5 Pomblang Syiem every year. However, with the passage of time, Raid Shabong being a bigger and stronger province suppressed Raid Ri 6 Kur by trying to interfere with the administration of Raid Ri 6 Kur. However, Raid Ri 6 Kur had independent administrative control over itself and had never been under Raid Shabong. But the identity of Raid Ri 6 Kur as a separate administrative unit was still shrouded in doubt due to the interference and overt actions of Raid Shabong and accordingly Raid Ri 6 Kur petitioned before the Syiem of Hima Khyrim for the re-recognition of a separate Raid vide letter dated 01.05.2004. 6. The Syiem of Hima Khyrim vide letter dated 28.05.2004 directed the Basans of Raid Mawlieh to cause inquiry into the matter and as per the findings/report of the Basan of Raid Mawlieh, the Syiem of Khyrim vide Order dated 22.12.2004 was pleased to grant Ri 6 Kur its own separate Raid. 7. To the utter shock and surprise of the petitioner, on the basis of a purported complaint dated 06.01.2005 filed by the Headman of Mawpran and Nongmadan Mawpran to stay the creation of Raid Ri 6 Kur by the Syiem of Hima Khyrim and without notice to the petitioner, the respondent No. 2 without registering a case passed Order dated 07.09.2007 stating that the Order passed by the Syiem of Khyrim was bad and against the rule of the majority and not based on proper records, documents and materials available. 8. Being aggrieved by the said impugned order dated 7.09.07, the petitioner approached this Court by way of this instant writ petition. 9. Heard Mr. HS Thangkhiew, the learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. P Nongbri, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that, initially the Raid Ki 6 Kur was under the governance of the Syeim of Hima Shyrim. Subsequently, the Raid Ki 6 Kur joined WP(C) No. 90 of 2011 Page 3 of 5 with the Raid Shabong and thereafter returned to the Syiem of Hima Khyrim. After joining the Syiem of Hima Khyrim, the Raid Ki 6 Kur faced certain problems, so they addressed a letter to the Deputy Commissioner, Khasi & Jaintia Hills, Shillong in the year 1883. Thereafter, the Syiem of Hima Khyrim passed an order dated 22.12.04 and against that order, a complaint has been lodged by two Headmen before the Executive Committee of the District Council who vide order dated 7.09.07 stayed the order dated 22.12.04 passed by the Syiem of Hima Khyrim on the ground that the said order is bad and is against the rule of law and was not based materials available on record. The learned senior counsel further contended that the said impugned order dated 7.09.07 was passed without hearing the petitioner and the order does not disclosed specifically the reasons for stay, so the said impugned order may be set aside. 10. Mr. VGK Kynta, the learned senior counsel for the District Council has submitted that, the impugned order dated 7.09.07 was passed by the District Council after hearing the parties and after perusal of the records. The learned senior counsel for the District Council further contended that, there are 4(four) Raid i.e. Raid Shabong, Raid Rangnah, Raid Lyngkhat and Raid Mawshun which have been in existence since the year 1902. The learned counsel also contended that, there is a law passed by the District Council i.e. the Khasi Hills Autonomous District for administration and election of Sordar of 4 Raid, Khyrim Shiemship) Act, 1997 pertaining to administration and election of Sordar of 4 Raid, so the petition has no merit and may be dismissed. 11. Mr. L Shangwan, the learned counsel for respondent No. 2 also endorsed the submissions advanced by the learned senior counsel for the District Council. WP(C) No. 90 of 2011 Page 4 of 5 12. After hearing the submissions advanced by the learned counsel at bar and on perusal of the order dated 22.12.04 as well as the impugned order dated 7.09.07, I am of the considered view that whatever the law or custom may prevail, before coming to any conclusion all the parties are required to be heard. Since it is not a disputed fact that the petitioners were not heard while passing the impugned order dated 7.09.07 by the Executive Committee of the District Council, in my view such order is bad in law. However, I am not going on the merit of the case but in my considered view, the District Council must hear all the parties afresh and to examine all the documents and then to pass a speaking order by giving proper justifications. 13. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 7.09.07 is hereby set aside; however, status quo will have to be maintained by all the parties till disposal of the matter by the Executive Committee of the District Council preferably within 7(seven) months from the date of receipt of this order. 14. The instant writ petition is allowed to that extent and the
Decision
matter stands disposed of. JUDGE V. Lyndem WP(C) No. 90 of 2011 Page 5 of 5