Shri Kronly K Bani vs K.H.A.D.C.

Mr. Dinesh Maheshwari, C.J.—The petitioners, who had made complaints against the Syiem of Hima, Rambrai Syiemship on 05.07.2014 and 20.08.2014, have filed this writ petition stating the grievance that despite order of this Court, the respondent No. 2, the Executive Member i/c Elaka Administration, Khasi Hills Autonomous District Council, Shillong, has failed to take specific decision on their complaints.

On behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3, a counter affidavit has been filed stating, inter alia, that a final decision in disposal of the complaints was indeed taken on 21.03.2016; and a copy of the order so passed on 21.03.2016 has been placed on record as Annexure V to the counter affidavit.

After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material placed on record, this Court is unable to satisfy itself that a concrete and final decision has been taken by the Executive Committee in this matter, as required by the order dated 29.04.2015 passed in WP(C) No. 86 of 2015.

The earlier Writ Petition No. 86 of 2015 was filed by the petitioners while stating the grievance that the respondent No. 2 was not taking the decision on the aforesaid complaints. It was admitted on behalf of the respondents in the said writ petition that the complaints carried serious allegations but then, it was suggested that the disposal would take some time where the parties would be required to be given the opportunity to produce evidence (oral as also documentary). At that stage, this Court granted 2 (two) months'' time for a final decision on the complaints, while observing that any attempt for adjournment could be dealt with as per the principles contained in Order 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Court proceeded to dispose of the writ petition by directing the respondent No. 2 to "finally decide and dispose of the two complaints dated 05.07.2014 and 20.08.2014 within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the judgment and order".

In the order dated 21.03.2016, the respondent No. 2 has indicated in the first place that the change of composition of Committee had been the basic reason for delay in passing the order. However, it has been observed that the parties appeared on 15.07.2015 and 24.07.2015 but the hearing could not be completed as there were specific allegations pertaining to indiscriminate felling of trees in Raid Kyrshai. Then, it is indicated that during the course of enquiry, while taking evidence by the Forest Officers of the Council, the petitioners failed to substantiate their allegations as they could not produce the relevant material. However, thereafter what has been indicated and observed in the referred order dated 21.03.2016, only leads to dissatisfaction inasmuch as nothing of a concrete decision has been stated on the complaints and a strange methodology has been suggested as if such kind of a matter, of unauthorised and illegal felling of trees, could also be taken up for a so called amicable settlement; and the complainants have also been left free to file a fresh complaint. The relevant passages in the order dated 21.03.2016 could be taken note of as under:

"Thereafter, in pursuance of the order passed by the Hon''ble High Court of Meghalaya dated 29.4.2015 passed in WP(C) No 86 of 2015, the Executive Committee vide letter No. DC. XXVII/Genl/9/2011-2015/43 dt 23.6.2015 authorised us to act and take up the matter on its behalf. Subsequently, we called upon the parties to appear for hearing on 15.7.2015 and 24.7.2015 respectively, where both sides appeared. However, the hearing could not be completed in as much as there was a specific allegation pertaining to indiscriminate felling of trees in Raid Kyrshai. Accordingly, during the course of enquiry while taking evidence, by the Forest Officers of the Council, the complainant failed to substantiate their allegations because they could not produce materials records of the same. Upon perusal of the complaint petition and written submission by the contending parties, we are of the view that nevertheless, the allegations seems to be serious in nature, though lack of materials and substantial evidence make it difficult for us to come to a definite conclusion. Therefore, for the ends of justice we opine, that both the contending parties should first try to sort out the matter at their level amicably by sitting across the table. Accordingly, we hereby direct the Syiem to convene the Dorbar Pyllun of the Syiemship within 20 (twenty) days from the date of receipt of this order and to communicate to the Executive Committee the date of the Dorbar Pyllun so that an official observer would be deputed. We also decide that if the differences cannot be resolved, the complainants is at liberty to file a fresh complaint for final decision inter alia based on the detail report of the official observer. With the above the complaint petition stands dispose of."

Having taken into comprehension all the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the complaints made, and the directions in the order dated 29.04.2015 in WP(C) No. 86 of 2015, the procedure as adopted by the respondents No. 2 cannot be approved. The order passed by the respondent No. 2 does not indicate as to what was the evidence produced before him and as to whether any oral evidence was taken. Even the contents of the report of alleged Forest Officers has not been indicated. Moreover, in the matter of the present nature, there is hardly nothing available for the so called amicable settlement when the allegations are of gross violation of law and indiscriminate felling of trees.

This Court would hasten to observe that there are no final comments on the merits of the case either way, as all the aspects relating to merits are to be examined by the respondent No. 2. Suffice it to observe for the present purpose that the order dated 21.03.2016 cannot be approved when it is not of a concrete decision on the complaints of the petitioners and is not even an appropriately speaking one; and when the course suggested by the respondent No. 2 remains rather uncertain and unwarranted.

Therefore, in the totality of circumstances, the order dated 21.03.2016 is set aside and the matter is restored for reconsideration of the respondent No. 2, strictly in accordance with law.

It would be expected of the respondent No. 2 to extend full opportunity of making submissions and evidence to the parties concerned and then to take a final decision in the matter with reference to the earlier order of this Court dated 29.04.2015 as passed in WP(C) No. 86 of 2015, now within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of appearance of the parties.

With the requirements and directions aforesaid, this petition stands disposed of, while making it clear that in case of any grievance remaining yet or arising after the order by the respondent No.2, it shall be permissible for the aggrieved party to take recourse to appropriate proceedings in accordance with law.

For the purpose of carrying out the requirements of this order, the parties i.e., the petitioner as also the respondent No. 4 shall stand at notice to appear before the respondent No. 2 in the first place on 20.05.2016.