AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Mr. H. Kharmih, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. S. Dey, learned counsel for the respondents No. 1-3/GHADC.
The brief fact of the petitioner''s case in a nutshell is that:
The Petitioners No. 2 & 3 are the registered Nokmas of Makkragiri Akhing who succeeded the Nokmaship after the death of the
last recorded Nokma (L) Solen Marak and his wife Watjak Sangma. After a lapse of almost two decades the Respondent No. 4 &
5 filed an application for registering Respondent No. 6 & 7 as 2nd Nokma. The Petitioners on coming to know of the said
application filed objection following which an inquiry was conducted and a report was submitted on 22.02.2010 and thereafter the
Respondent No. 3 vide order dated 19.03.2010 registered Respondent No. 6 & 7 as Nokmas. The Petitioners being aggrieved by
the said Order dated 19.03.2010 filed an appeal before the Respondent No. 2, the appeal was dismissed. Further, against the said
Order dated 19.03.2010 passed by Respondent No. 2 the Petitioners filed WP(C) No. 354 of 2012. After hearing the parties this
Hon''ble Court vide Judgment and Order dated 17.06.2014 set aside and quash the said two Orders and remanded back the matter
to Respondent No. 2 for fresh trial. The Respondent No. 2 without taking into consideration the material available on record as well
as the direction of this Hon''ble Court and without following the judicial procedure required under the law and the preliminary issues
raised by the Petitioners herein and without hearing the parties straight away passed the impugned Order dated 31.07.2014 in
GHADC-REV/ APPEAL No. 39 A/C of 2014/ 380.
Hence being aggrieved by the said impugned Order dated 31.07.2014 the Petitioners beg to file this instant Petition to set aside and
quash the same"".
The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the issues involved in this instant writ petition pertains to the selection and registration of
''Nokma'', but the learned Chief Executive Member, Garo Hills Autonomous District Council, Tura, Meghalaya without framing the issues and
without taking any evidence disposed of the matter blankly and registered the name of ''Nokma'' without coming into a proper conclusion.
On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents No. 1-3/GHADC submits that there was no objection for registration in favour of
the private respondents No. 4 and 5 as second ''Nokma''.
After hearing the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that, since the dispute is between the
parties on ''Nokmaship'' it just cannot be decided without framing of issues and taking any evidence. Therefore, I feel that in this type of matter, the
provisions of CPC should guide the Chief Executive Member, Garo Hills Autonomous District Council, Tura, Meghalaya. Since the matter has not
been properly adjudicated, I do not find any reason to allow the impugned order dated 31.07.2014 passed by the Chief Executive Member, Garo
Hills Autonomous District Council, Tura, Meghalaya in GHADC-Rev/ Appeal No. 39 A/C of 2014/380 (High Court Remand 39 A/C of 2014).
Hence, the impugned order dated 31.07.2014 is hereby set aside and remand back to the learned Chief Executive Member, Garo Hills
Autonomous District Council, Tura, Meghalaya to decide the matter afresh after taking the evidence and framing of issues. In the meantime for a
stop gap arrangement, the respondents No. 4 to 7 are to function as ''Nokma'' as per the rule till the decision is arrived by the Chief Executive
Member, Garo Hills Autonomous District Council, Tura, Meghalaya.
The Registry is directed to send back the Lower Court case record to the concerned Court along with a copy of this judgment and order.
With this observation and direction the instant writ petition is allowed to that extent and stands disposed of.