AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B. Bhattacharjee, J
Heard Mr. A. S. Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. C.C.T. Sangma, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 and Mr. N. Khera, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.6. None appeared on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2 – 5.
The challenge in this revision petition is against the order dated 18.03.2020 in Misc.case No.45 of 2020 and order dated 17.03.2021 in Misc.case No.18 of 2021 arising out of Title Suit No.13 of 2020 passed by the Sub-ordinate District Council Court, Shillong.
Meghalaya Power Distribution Corporation Limited (MePDCL), the petitioner, though not a party to the Title Suit No.13 of 2020, has challenged the impugned orders as according to the petitioner the impugned orders were sought to be implemented against it by the respondent No.1 and were used as tools for disturbing the work undertaken by the petitioner’s department. The prime contention raised by the petitioner is that the Sub-ordinate District Council Court, being a court established under the provision of Sixth Schedule of the Constitution of India, has no jurisdiction over the petitioner which is admittedly a non-tribal entity.
On the last date of hearing of the matter it was informed by Mr. C.C.T. Sangma, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 that a separate title suit has been instituted by the respondent No.1 against the petitioner seeking relief against the grievances raised therein. Today, after obtaining detailed instruction, the learned counsel submits that Title Suit No.6(T) of 2025 along with Misc.case No.29(T) of 2025 has been instituted by the respondent No.1 in the Court of the Assistant to Deputy Commissioner, Shillong seeking redressal of his grievance against the petitioner. He submits that at no point of time the impugned orders dated 18.03.2020 and 17.03.2021 passed by the Sub-ordinate District Council Court Shillong, were sought to be implemented against the petitioner. He, however, submits that since the respondent No.1 has already instituted a separate suit against the petitioner, the question of obstructing the work of the petitioner’s department on the basis of the orders dated 18.03.2020 and 17.03.2021 does not arise.
Mr. N. Khera, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.6 supports the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner.
Considering the submissions of the learned counsels appearing for the parties, more particularly, the submission of the learned counsel of the respondent No.1 that the impugned orders dated 18.03.2020 and 17.03.2021 are not directed against the petitioner herein, there hardly remains any controversy to be decided in this matter. The revision petition, as such, stands closed by observing that the order dated 18.03.2020 in Misc.case No.45 of 2020 and order dated 17.03.2021 in Misc.case No.18 of 2021 arising out of Title Suit No.13 of 2020 passed by the Sub-ordinate District Council Court, Shillong, shall have no bearing on the activities and the works undertaken by the petitioner’s department.
It is, however, made clear that the observations made in this order shall have no bearing in the merits and adjudication of the Title Suit No.6(T) of 2025 along with Misc.case No.29(T) of 2025 pending before the Court of the Assistant to Deputy Commissioner, Shillong.
With the above, this revision petition stands disposed of.
The Trial Court records shall be returned forthwith.