Meghalaya High Court
By The Chief Executive Officer, ... vs . Smt. Komal Gurung on 7 August, 2018
Author: Mohammad Yaqoob Mir
Bench: Mohammad Yaqoob Mir
Serial No. 01 HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
Regular List AT SHILLONG
Crl.Revn.P. No. 6 of 2018
Date of order: 07.08.2018
The Cantonment Board, represented
by the Chief Executive Officer, Shillong Vs. Smt. Komal Gurung
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohammad Yaqoob Mir, Chief Justice
Appearance:
For the Petitioner/Appellant(s) : Mrs. T. Yangi B, Adv.
For the Respondent(s) : None for the respondent
i) Whether approved for reporting in Yes/No
Law journals etc.:
ii) Whether approved for publication Yes/No
in press:
Oral:-
1. Notice to the respondent for disposal of this petition, in the light of the records as made available coupled with the submissions as made, is not required, as such is taken up for disposal at the motion stage.
2. Petitioner in essence prays for setting aside the two interim orders passed by the court of the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner (Judicial), Shillong in Criminal Revision No. 1 (T) of 2016 on 03.05.2018 and 04.07.2018.
3. In terms of order dated 03.05.2018, petitioner (revisionist in the court below) has been directed to produce the entire record of registration of birth and death of the Cantonment area and also to furnish the record of the residents, who have been registered in the Cantonment area.
4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner (revisionist in the court below), the registers of birth and death for the years 2015 to 2018 were produced before the court below but vide order dated 04.07.2018, the petitioner (revisionist in the court below) has been directed to furnish the Crl.Revn.P. No. 6 of 2018 Page 1 procedure adopted by the Cantonment Board and also to furnish the relevant registers right from the inception and also to highlight, if any birth or death has been registered in the past on the basis of the certificate issued by the headman.
5. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned revisional court of Additional Deputy Commissioner (Judicial), Shillong) for deciding the revision petition, has to look into the propriety, illegality of the order under challenge, therefore, direction for production of registers is beyond the scope of the revisional jurisdiction.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner (revisionist in the court below) when asked as to why the petitioner has not implemented the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate dated 28.10.2015, she would contend that the headman had issued some certificates when the headman is not competent to do so. In addition, submits that the functions and positions of the headmen were taken note of by this Court while disposing of WP(C) No. 363 of 2014 dated 10.12.2014 and it was made clear that the headman of the locality has no power or authority to issue NOC for the purpose of birth and death.
7. It appears that filing of revision petition before the court below was misconceived. Learned revisional court should have decided the revision petition as there was no requirement for calling the registers of birth and death. That apart, registers for the period of 2015 to 2018 stand produced before the revisional court, again, direction to produce the records right from the inception was not required, it is in the same background, instant petition has been filed though wrongly styled as criminal revision petition when it is petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
8. Factual matrix in nut shell necessary for disposal of this petition is that the respondent Smt. Komal Gurung filed an application before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Shillong registered as C.R. Case No. 194 (T) of Crl.Revn.P. No. 6 of 2018 Page 2 2014. The learned Magistrate after examining the petitioner and three other witnesses has observed that the respondent's son was born on 03.09.1990 at Jhalupara, Shillong which fact is supported by the certificates as produced i.e., residential certificate dated 12.09.2014 issued by the Headman, Jhalupara Village Council certifying Vivek Thapa (son of the respondent) as a resident of the locality since birth, admission card issued by the MBOSE to Vivek Thapa for the SSLC examination wherein his date of birth is recorded as 03.09.1990 and the certificate dated 17.12.2014 issued by Shri Chand Bahadur Chettri (House owner) certifying that Vivek Thapa is his tenant since birth. Finally after recording satisfaction regarding the genuineness of the date and place of birth of the respondent's son, he has issued a direction to the authorities which include the petitioner Cantonment Board to register the date and place of birth of Vivek Thapa (son of the respondent).
9. The Cantonment Board not satisfied with the said order has filed the revision petition before the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner (Judicial), Shillong. Record reveals that the direction issued by the learned Magistrate is not on the basis of any NOC, in fact the learned Magistrate after recording the statements of the witnesses and examining the documents as produced by the respondent in support of her application has passed the direction. The petitioner has contended that the direction of the learned Magistrate is based on the NOC issued by the Headman is misplaced. It shall be apt to notice as to what has been observed in the judgment of this Court dated 10.12.2014 passed in WP(C) No. 363 of 2014, same is quoted hereunder:
"The duty of headman is to look after the welfare only of the locality concerned and at best can place the grievances of the people to the Government, District Administration or to the Police. Headman of a locality did not derive any right from law, and rule or from the Constitution of India to issue NOC for the purpose of birth/death or for registration of any document as well as for building permission and obtaining loan. We often notice that, whenever any person approached for birth/death certificate, building Crl.Revn.P. No. 6 of 2018 Page 3 permission, registration of sale deed or any other document or electric connection, loan they have been asked to bring NOC from local headman which is highly illegal on the part of the District Administration and the Government. We also notice that, very often local headman interfere with the police work as well as with the District Administration. Now the question comes, where from those headmen derive the power to issue NOC or to interfere with administration or indulge in removing people from villages. The answer is that, no rule of law has empowered them to do so; they are doing of these kinds of activities as per their whim and will and they try to run a parallel Government. As a result, common citizens are the worse sufferers which should not be allowed at any cost."
10. The proceedings as recorded by the learned Magistrate apparently do not fall within the observations as made by this Court in the said judgment. The respondent is concerned only with regard to registration of date of birth of her son for which relief has been granted by the learned Magistrate.
11. Since supervisory powers have been invoked under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, it would be now appropriate to look into all aspects of the case so as to save the respondent from unnecessary protracted litigative process. The only ground as projected in the revision petition for annulling the order passed by the learned Magistrate is that he has issued the direction for registration of the birth of Vivek Thapa on the basis of NOC issued by the Headman but same is not true. Learned Magistrate in his order has made it clear that in addition to the statement of the petitioner (respondent), statements of the three other witnesses were recorded then, has also recorded that he has examined the certificates issued as referred to above, therefore, not only on the basis of certificate of the Headman but on the basis of depositions of the witnesses and other documents, has issued the direction. No question of disobedience of the judgment of this Court rendered in WP(C) No. 363 of 2014. Revision petition pending before the court below being misconceived only deserves rejection shall accordingly Crl.Revn.P. No. 6 of 2018 Page 4 stand rejected. Order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Shillong dated 28.10.2015 is maintained, shall be implemented forthwith.
12. Petition disposed of as above.
13. Copy of the order be sent to the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner (Judicial), Shillong for information.
(Mohammad Yaqoob Mir) Chief Justice Meghalaya 07.08.2018 "Sylvana PS"
Crl.Revn.P. No. 6 of 2018 Page 5