Meghalaya High Court
Shri Mozidur Rahman vs . State Of Meghalaya & Ors. on 23 June, 2022
Author: H. S. Thangkhiew
Bench: H. S. Thangkhiew
Serial No. 06
Supplementary List
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG
WP(C) No. 147 of 2021
Date of Decision: 23.06.2022
Shri Mozidur Rahman Vs. State of Meghalaya & Ors.
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice H. S. Thangkhiew, Judge
Appearance:
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. S. Deb, Adv.
For the Respondent(s) : Ms. R. Colney, GA
i) Whether approved for reporting in Yes/No
Law journals etc:
ii) Whether approved for publication Yes/No
in press:
JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)
1. The petitioner is stated to be the Job Card Holder of the Moulakhandi VEC. The issue in the instant matter is with regard the manner in which the election to the said VEC has been conducted, wherein conflicting orders have been passed for which interference by Page 1 of 4 this Court is called for, to set the matter right and to quash the impugned orders.
2. Mr. S. Deb, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the village, there has been no formal bifurcation and elections were held on 09.01.2020 and by the order dated 13.01.2020, three persons namely; Shri Ahinur Islam, Shri Surat Zamal, Shri Kalu Sk and Smti Moslema Begum were elected as President, Secretary and Women Members respectively, for the term of 3(three) years. He further submits that strangely by another order dated 14.01.2020, i.e. on the next day itself, the respondent No. 3 named another three persons as President, Secretary and Women Member for the same VEC in place of the earlier functionaries elected on 09.01.2020, without any tangible reason.
3. Thereafter, the learned counsel submits that vide order dated 23.12.2020, the said respondent No. 3, named three persons as functionaries of Moulakhandi South VEC, which he submits that the same was never in existence. He contends that the actions of the respondent No. 3 in issuing such orders has resulted in the disruption of the management/functioning of the VEC, and prays that the Page 2 of 4 impugned orders be quashed and the respondents be directed to consider the entire matter afresh by calling for fresh elections.
4. Ms. R. Colney, learned GA for the State respondents submits that it is not a fact that the Moulakhandi VEC has been bifurcated and the bifurcation is notional for easier management of the Job Card Holders and for allocation of works. However, she fairly submits that this Court may pass appropriate orders, so as to redress the grievances of the villagers.
5. It appears from the materials on record and from the submissions advanced by the parties, that indeed, there is some dislocation which has resulted in the mismanagement in the constitution and running of the Moulakhandi VEC. It is a settled proposition that a VEC cannot be bifurcated except for compelling reasons. The impugned orders that have been passed whereby the functionaries of the VEC have been changed in the course of the day, and further other functionaries appointed by subsequent orders for a portion of the village, appears to be without any basis.
6. In this view of the matter, the orders dated 13.01.2020 and 14.01.2020 shall be disregarded and the impugned order dated 23.12.2020 shall stand quashed and set aside. Page 3 of 4
7. Accordingly, the respondent No. 3, under the supervision of the respondent No. 2 is directed to examine the entire matter afresh and to conduct elections to elect new VEC and its functionaries, and to look into the matter with regard to the bifurcation of the VEC, which seems to be unjustified. The entire process shall be completed within a period of 4(four) weeks from the date of receipt the certified copy of this order.
8. With the above noted directions, the instant writ petition stands closed and is accordingly disposed of.
JUDGE Meghalaya 23.06.2022 "V. Lyndem-PS"
Page 4 of 4