Meghalaya High Court
Seng Kynthei Bishnupur Kenchs vs . The Khasi Hills Autonomous on 26 July, 2022
Author: H. S. Thangkhiew
Bench: H. S. Thangkhiew
Serial No. 17
Regular List
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG
WP(C) No. 121 of 2022
Date of Decision: 26.07.2022
Seng Kynthei Bishnupur Kenchs Vs. The Khasi Hills Autonomous
Trace, represented by its President District Council & Ors.
Smti Neliancy Kynta & Anr.
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice H. S. Thangkhiew, Judge
Appearance:
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. P. Yobin, Adv.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. V.G.K. Kynta, Sr. Adv. with
Ms. G. Kynta, Adv. (For R 1)
Ms. A.P. Kharsahnoh, Adv. (For R 2&3)
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 aggrieved by the alleged arbitrary action on the part of the respondent No. 2, whereby it is contended that respondent had ordered for the dissolution of the organization of the Page 1 of 6 petitioners, which is stated to be a registered society under the Meghalaya Societies Registration Act, 1983, of women folk of Bishnupur Kenchs Trace with its registered office at Bishnupur, Shillong. The petitioner No. 1 is stated to be the President and the petitioner No. 2 is the Secretary of the Association.
2. It has been contended by Mr. P. Yobin, the learned counsel for the petitioners that due to some complaints that had been filed pursuant to a meeting which was held on 15.03.2022 for the purpose of electing the Rangbah Dong of Bishnupur Kenches Trace locality, the respondents had issued the impugned letter supposedly dated 12.03.2022, indicating therein that the functioning of the petitioners' organization within the Dorbar Shnong was terminated. Learned counsel also submits that the impugned letter, which he contends is back dated, is without jurisdiction and the respondent No. 2 and 3 have no authority to issue such directions, as the organization is a registered organization under the Registration of Societies Act. He further submits that any action sought to be taken against the organization was to be made by initiating proceedings before a competent authority.
3. The attention of this Court has then been drawn to the second part of the impugned letter, wherein the President of the petitioners' organization has been asked to submit all documents such Page 2 of 6 as Bank Accounts, Lease Agreement, so on and so forth to the respondents. On this count too the learned counsel submits that the action of the respondent No. 2 and 3 is without any authority and a nullity in the eye of law. He therefore prays that the impugned letter be set aside and quashed.
4. Ms. A.P. Kharsahnoh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 2 and 3 submits that the petitioners' organization is a defunct organization, inasmuch as, by the articles of their constitution, the office bearers and the petitioners are not entitled to remain in office any longer. She supports the impugned letter by submitting that in view of the occurrences that had happened in the Dorbar which had been conducted in the Village, the letter that has been issued was for the interest and smooth functioning of the Village/Locality Dorbar.
5. Learned counsel further submits that the stand taken by the petitioners' organization that they are an independent entity, and not answerable to the Dorbar Shnong is incorrect, as by their own letter dated 05.11.2011 which is annexed at Annxure-6 of the affidavit, she submits that the financial status and other assistance which have been received by the organization had been placed before the Dorbar itself. She further submits that there is no infirmity in the impugned letter as Page 3 of 6 it only communicates the decision of the Dorbar that the petitioners' association no longer will be associated with the said Village Dorbar.
6. Mr. V.G.K. Kynta, learned Senior counsel assisted by Ms. G. Kynta, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 submits that he has no submission to make but only submits that perhaps the remedy lies elsewhere for the grievances of the petitioners, that is before a competent Civil Court.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
8. The only issue in question here, without going into the issue whether the letter was backdated as alleged by the petitioner, is with regard to the purport of the said letter dated 12.03.2022, issued by the respondent No. 2 and 3, wherein they have conveyed a decision to not allow the petitioners' organization to function within the Village any longer, and also have directed the petitioners to hand-over all the documents, Bank Account, Lease Agreement, so on and so forth.
9. The petitioners' organization as noted earlier, is a registered organization under the Meghalaya Societies Registration Act, 1983 and is governed by its own Constitution and articles of association, and any action therefore that is contemplated to be taken against the said organization will have to be as per law.
Page 4 of 6
10. On examination, the impugned letter as contended by the petitioners is not a letter dissolving the organization, as it can be made out from the wordings itself it is but a communication by the Village Dorbar to the effect that the petitioners' organization will no longer have any say in the functioning of the Village Dorbar. The second part of the impugned letter however, which is with regard to the direction to the petitioners to hand-over all the documents, Bank Account, Lease Agreement, etc. is without any jurisdiction, inasmuch as, the petitioners' organization being a registered society, any action in such matters will have to be by way of an appropriate proceeding before the statutory authority, and the same is beyond the scope of the functions of a Village Dorbar (Dorbar Shnong)
11. For the reasons aforementioned, the second part of the impugned order dated 12.03.2022, which contains the directions of the Dorbar Shnong to the petitioners for handing over all the documents, such as Bank Accounts, Lease Agreement, etc. is deemed untenable in the eye of law and is accordingly interfered with and set aside.
12. In the result thereof, the parties in connection with this matter and other points of dispute, are left to take recourse to other remedies in accordance with law.
Page 5 of 6
13. The instant writ petition is partially allowed as indicated above and is accordingly disposed of.
JUDGE Meghalaya 26.07.2022 "V. Lyndem-PS"
Page 6 of 6