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
7 paragraphs · 215 wordsH.S. Thangkhiew, J
Mr. R.Pahsyntiew, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 has objected to the application for impleadment on the ground that the subject matter of the instant writ petition is only with regard to the closure notice and demand for environmental compensation that have been issued by the Meghalaya State Pollution Board, represented by Ms. O.A.I.Bang, learned counsel. He further submits that the applicant being more interested in the aspect of title in the instant matter, will not be necessary to be impleaded.
Mr. S.Thapa, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impleadment is sought to clarify the entire issue with regard to possession and ownership of the land.
Ms. O.A.I.Bang, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2, however, submits that if the petitioner pays the environmental compensation amounting to₹11lakhs as directed, the matter can be closed.
On hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it appears that the basic issue in the present writ petition is with regard to the environmental violation allegedly committed by the petitioner.
Accordingly, the learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to obtain instructions within one week as to whether they are willing to pay the environmental compensation so that the matter can be closed.
List this matter on 13-05-2026.