The High Court
Case Details
THE HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA AT SHILLONG. CR(P) No.(SH)18/2012 Shri.Pongdo Marak, the registered and recognized Nokma of Bangonggre A’khing, East Garo Hills, Meghalaya. -Vs- 1. 2. 3. Shri Rosin Shira, The registered and recognized Nokma of Norek A’khing, PO & PS-Sonsak, Village- Norek-794111, East Garo Hills, Meghalaya. The Chief Executive Member, Garo Hills Autonomous District Council, West Garo Hills District, Tura, Meghalaya Executive Member, Garo Hills Autonomous District Council, West Garo Hills District, Tura, Meghalaya. :::: Petitioner :::: Respondents BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE T NANDAKUMAR SINGH For the Petitioner For the Respondents Date of hearing Date of Judgment & Order : : : :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. HR Nath, Adv. Mr. S Dey, Adv. for R-2 & 3. 11.07.2013 11.07.2013 (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:7)(cid:3)(cid:9)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:3)(cid:6)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:10)(cid:14)(cid:15)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:9) (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:7)(cid:3)(cid:9)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:3)(cid:6)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:10)(cid:14)(cid:15) (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:7)(cid:3)(cid:9)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:3)(cid:6)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:10)(cid:14)(cid:15) (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:7)(cid:3)(cid:9)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:3)(cid:6)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:10)(cid:14)(cid:15) Heard Mr. HR Nath, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S Dey, learned counsel for the respondents No.2 & 3. 2. Mr. S Dey, learned counsel for the respondents No.2 & 3 questioned the maintainability of the present revision petition. Accordingly, this CR(P) No.(SH)18/2012 Page 1 of 5 question is now taken up as a preliminary point. The grounds for questioning the maintainability of the revision petition are:- (i) Under Rule 6 of the Assam High Court (Jurisdiction over District Council Courts) Order, 1954; the High Court may, on application or otherwise, call for the proceedings of any civil or criminal case decided by or pending in any court in the autonomous district constituted under the provisions of sub-paragraphs (1) and (2) of paragraphs 4 of the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution and passed such orders as it may deem fit. Therefore, the revision petition could be filed before this court for calling the proceedings of the civil and criminal cases pending in any courts and against the order passed by any courts. The present impugned order dated 19.09.2011 is an order passed by the Chief Executive Member, which is not the court constituted under Rules called Garo Hills Autonomous District (Administration of Justice) Rules, 1953, inasmuch as, the Courts in the Autonomous District Council area are constituted under the said Rules; (ii) A mere mentioning of the word “Court” in the impugned judgment and order dated 19.09.2011, will not make the office of the Chief Executive Member as a Court; and (iii) The appropriate forum to seek remedy against the impugned judgment and order dated 19.09.2011 passed by the Executive authority i.e. the Chief Executive Member, would be writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. Mr. HR Nath learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that by an order of this Court dated 18.04.2012 passed in MC(WP(C) No.(SH)106/2012, the writ petition assailing the same impugned judgment and order was allowed to withdraw with a liberty to file afresh petition. Through bonafide mistake, present petition in the form of revision petition is filed. CR(P) No.(SH)18/2012 Page 2 of 5 4. Mr. S Dey, learned counsel for the respondents No.2 & 3 contended that Rule 6 of the Assam High Court (Jurisdiction over District Council Courts) Order, 1954, cannot be read in isolation of the Garo Hills Autonomous District (Administration of Justice) Rules, 1953. “District Council Court” and “Subordinate District Council Court” are defined in the Assam High Court (Jurisdiction over District Council Courts) Order, 1954. According to Rule 2(e); “District Council Court” mean a District Council Court Constituted under the provisions of sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 4 of the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution. Again under Rule 2(i) of the said Order of 1954; “Subordinate District Council Court” means a Subordinate District Council Court constituted under the provisions of sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 4 of the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution and includes Additional Subordinate District Council Court. The constitution the Courts in the areas of Garo Hills Autonomous District Council is under Rule 5 of the Garo Hills Autonomous District (Administration of Justice) Rules, 1953. It would be more profitable to quote Rule 5 of the Administration of Justice, Rules, 1943, which reads as follows:- “5. There shall be three classes of Courts, as specified below, in the areas within the Garo Hills Autonomous District, to be constituted by the District Council for the trial of suits and cases between the parties all of whom belong to a Scheduled Tribe or Tribes within such areas, other than suits and cases to which the provisions of sub-para (1) of para 5 of the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution apply – Village Courts. Subordinate District Council Courts (i) (ii) (iii) District Council Court. 5. Under Rule 19 of the said Rules i.e. the Garo Hills Autonomous District (Administration of Justice) Rules, 1953; appeal lies to the Subordinate District Council Courts or Additional Subordinate District Council Courts; from any order or sentence passed by a Village Court in a criminal case, or from the decision of the Village Court in any other case, if the appeal is preferred within sixty days of the conviction or sentence or decision of the Village Court. Again Rule 31 of the Garo Hills Autonomous District (Administration of Justice) Rules, CR(P) No.(SH)18/2012 Page 3 of 5 1953; appeal lies from the orders of the Subordinate District Council Courts to the District Council Court. 6. Mr. S Dey, further contended that the “Court’s” mentioning in the Rule 6 of the Assam High Court (Jurisdiction over District Council Courts) Order, 1954, will mean different types of courts constituted under Rule 5 of the Garo Hills Autonomous District (Administration of Justice) Rules, 1953. Therefore, it is his submission that a mere mentioning of the words ”In the Court of the Chief Executive Member: GHADC, Tura” in the impugned judgment and order will not make the Office of the Chief Executive Member as a Court, inasmuch as, the Courts are to be constituted under Rule 5 of the said Rules, 1953 and there is also no provision for constituting a Court consisting of the Office of the Chief Executive Member. Therefore, taking into consideration of the submission of Mr. S Dey, learned counsel for the respondents No.2 & 3 and also on conjoint reading of the provisions of Garo Hills Autonomous District (Administration of Justice) Rules, 1953, Assam High Court (Jurisdiction over District Council Courts) Order, 1954 and sub-paragraphs (1) and (2) of paragraph 4 of the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution of India, it is clear that the Court in the Garo Hills Autonomous District Council constituted under the provisions of sub-paragraphs (1) and (2) of paragraph 4 of the Constitution of India mentioned in the said Order, 1954, so far as Garo Hills Autonomous District is concerned, it is the one constituted under Rule 5 of the Garo Hills Autonomous District (Administration of Justice) Rules, 1953. Therefore, appropriate remedy against the impugned judgment and order passed by the Chief Executive Member: GHADC, Tura
Decision
would be the writ petition. 7. Mr. HR Nath, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for allowing him to withdraw this revision petition without prejudicing the right of the petitioner to file a writ petition assailing the impugned judgment and order dated CR(P) No.(SH)18/2012 Page 4 of 5 19.09.2011 passed by the Chief Executive Member: GHADC, Tura. This Court is of the considered view that only because of technical formalities or technical lapses, the petitioner should not be deprived of his right to seek appropriate remedy against the impugned judgment and order dated 19.09.2011 passed by the Executive Members: GHADC, Tura. Accordingly, the present revision petition is allowed to withdraw with a liberty to file writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. By taking into consideration of the peculiar nature of this case, a sum of Rs.1000/- as cost is imposed to the petitioner and it should be deposited in the fund of Shillong High Court Bar Association. 9. With the above observations, the present revision petition is disposed of on withdrawal. (cid:14)(cid:16)(cid:17)(cid:9) JUDGE CR(P) No.(SH)18/2012 Page 5 of 5