AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
8 paragraphs · 298 wordsB. Bhattacharjee, J
Heard Mr. A.R. Passah, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.
The grievance raised in this application is against the order dated 19.08.2025 passed by the Judge, District Council Court, Shillong in Misc. Case No. 90 of 2025, whereby the petitioner was asked to bear the travelling expenses of the enquiry officer who was appointed to enquire into the assertion of the petitioner to allow her file a suit in the capacity of an indigent person.
Mr. A.R. Passah, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that such an order asking the petitioner to bear the travel expenses of the enquiry officer defeats the very purpose of the provision of law. He contends that the law allows the ministerial staff of the Court concerned to be engaged for conducting an enquiry into the claim of a person being indigent.
Conducting an enquiry in the present case to determine whether the petitioner is an indigent person or not would definitely incur some expenditure. It is not known at this stage whether the District Council Court has any system to take care of such expenditure. Learned counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to inform the Court about the said aspect.
In the above situation, it would be appropriate to seek assistance of the learned counsel representing the Khasi Hills Autonomous District Council. The petitioner shall serve a copy of this order to the appropriate authority of the District Council so that the service of the standing counsel/any other counsel representing the District Council can be availed by this Court to seek clarification on the above issue on the next date fixed.
Let a copy of this order be supplied to Mr. A.R. Passah, learned counsel for the petitioner, free of cost.
List this matter on 23.06.2026.