KINGLAND THONGNI Vs. KHASI HILLS AUTONOMOUS DISTRICT COUNCIL & ORS.
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
Khasi Hills Autonomous District Council And Ors.
Click here to view full judgement.
T. Nandakumar Singh, J. -
(1.) This Intra-Court appeal is against the judgment and order of a Coordinate Bench (Single Bench) dated 24.04.2012 passed in WP (C) No. (SH)213/2011, wherein and where-under, the learned Single Judge had dismissed the writ petition i.e. WP (C) No. (SH)213/2011 for the sole reason that pursuant to the removal of the writ petitioner (present appellant) from the post of Myntri of Rangjadong Village by the impugned orders dated 15.12.2010 and 27.04.2011, the respondent No. 8 had been appointed as Acting Myntri of Rangjadong Village after holding a Referendum by the respondents No. 6 & 7; and in the absence of prayer in the writ petition for quashing the orders for appointing the respondent No. 8 as Myntri, the writ petition is not maintainable.
(2.) The reasons for dismissing the writ petition mentioned in the impugned order dated 24.04.2012 reads as follows:-
...The basic prayer of the writ petitioner is for quashing and setting aside the impugned orders, abovementioned. It is noted from the records that pursuant to the above said impugned orders, a Notification dated 05.08.2011 was issued for holding the election to the post of Myntri and pursuant to the said Notification, by order dated 20.08.2011, the respondent No. 8 was duly elected for the post of Myntri of Rangjadong village.
In the present writ petition, the impugned orders dated 15.12.2010 and 27.04.2011 have been challenged. However, the follow up action which has been taken up by the respondent authorities in holding the election and appointing respondent No. 8 to the post of Myntri of Rangjadong village have not been challenged in this writ petition.
Therefore, even if the above impugned orders are quashed and set aside, the follow up orders pursuant to the said impugned orders, having not been challenged in this writ petition, will remain in operation and unless, the subsequent/follow up orders are challenged, this writ petition suffers from not impugning the subsequent orders passed/issued in pursuant to impugned orders dated 15.12.2010 and 27.04.2011.
In other words, the subsequent appointment of respondent No. 8 to the post of Myntri of Rangjadong village having not been also challenged in this writ petition, this writ petition also suffers for not impugning the election/appointment of respondent No. 8 to the post in question.
In this view of the matter, this writ petition hereby stands rejected being devoid of any merit.
In view of the facts stated above, the cases so relied upon by the parties in support of their arguments, have not been relied upon and taken into consideration by this Court, while writing this judgment and order.
(3.) Heard Mr. BM Roy Dolloi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/writ petitioner and Mr. B Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.