Meghalaya High Court
Cmj Foundation & Anr vs State Of Meghalaya on 17 December, 2025
Author: W. Diengdoh
Bench: W. Diengdoh
Serial No. 02
Supplementary 1 List
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG
WP(C) No.699 of 2025
Date of order: 17.12.2025
CMJ Foundation & Anr Vs State of Meghalaya
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice W. Diengdoh, Judge
For the Petitioner : Mr. A.P. Singh, Adv
For the Respondent(s) : Ms. N.G. Shylla SR GA with
Mr. A.M. Pala, Adv
1. Heard Mr. A.P. Singh learned counsel for the petitioners who has submitted that the petitioner No.1 is a Trust Registered at Shillong, Meghalaya in the year 2004. The Trust is also the sponsored for the establishment of the Chandra Mohan Jha (CMJ) University, duly recognized by the UGC vide its letter dated 25.11.2010.
2. In course of its functioning, the Visitor of the University apparently noticing certain anomalies and has issued certain direction for compliance. The university then approach this Court by way of Writ Petition No.106 of 2013 and on Order dated 16.05.2013 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court, the University when on appeal before a Division Bench of this Court which was also dismissed vide order dated 31.05.2013. Against this order and Special Leave Petition (SLP) was preferred by the University before the Supreme Court, the same was disposed of vide order dated 13.09.2013 with a direction to the State Government to take appropriate action under section 48 of the Chandra Mohan Jha University, Act 2005.
3. Consequently, the State Government issued an Order dated 31.03.2014 whereby the CMJ University was dissolved. This led to another 1 round of litigation with a Writ Petition being filed by the said University before this Court being WP(C) No.177 of 2014 which was disposed of on 16.07.2015 in favour of the University. An Intra-court appeal was filed by the State Government being WA No.14 of 2017, the same also been disposed of vide Judgement and Order dated 06.05.2021, whereby the matter was remanded back to the learned Single Judge to take appropriate decision as far as the issue of dissolution of the CMJ University is concerned.
4. An appeal was filed before the Supreme Court by the University being Civil Appeal No.9694 of 2024. A cross appeal was also filed by the State being Civil Appeal No.9695 of 2024. The Supreme Court vide Judgement and Order dated 13.02.2025 had dismissed the appeal filed by the CMJ University and had allowed the appeal filed by the State of Meghalaya by holding that the decision of the State Government dated 31.03.2014 in dissolving the CMJ University is affirm.
5. It also the submission of the learned counsel that by referring to the said order of the Supreme Court dated 13.02.2025, the Deputy Commissioner, Ri-Bhoi District Nongpoh had issued a communication, No. DCRB (NGT)11/2023/Rev/31. dated 15.02.2025 to various banks, purportedly in compliance with the said Judgement dated 13.02.2025, directing for debit freezing of the bank account of the petitioners herein and several other persons, copy of which have been annexed in this petition as Annexure-P3.
6. Being aggrieved by the said impugned communication the petitioners have no approach this Court with a prayer inter-alia to direct de- freezing of the said bank account of the petitioners among others, since the action of the Deputy Commissioner was carried out with any legal basis 2 and the same has also not been specifically directed by the Supreme Court in the said Judgment dated 13.02.2025.
7. The learned counsel went on to submit that even if such action of direction for freezing of bank accounts of particular individuals, the only legal provision available to appropriate authorities, including the police is to take recourse to the provision of section 102 CrPC and that to only when a report is file before a Magistrate can the act of freezing such accounts takes place. This has not been done so in this case and inspite of several representation by the petitioners, no action has been taken by the learned Deputy Commissioner.
8. In view thereof, it is prayed that this petition may be allowed and, in the meantime, pending disposal of this writ, the impugned communication may be stayed and direction to the de-freeze the account of the petitioners may be passed.
9. Mrs. N.G. Shylla learned Sr. GA, has firstly acknowledged receipt of notice by the State respondent, however an initial objection was made as to the maintainability of this petition on the ground that in the impugned order, it is noticed that there are several individuals who are supposed to be affected by the said impugned communication. However, there are only seven petitioners who has approach this Court and here too, there is no specific authorization for the petitioner No.1 or for that matter, petitioner No.3 to represent all the petitioners or the affected person in this case. As such, it is prayed that this petition may be dismissed at the threshold on this ground alone.
10. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that such defects are curable and as such, corrective steps will be taken. However, even if an order of stay cannot be issued in respect of all those affected individuals whose names have figured in the said impugned 3 communication, as far as the petitioners herein are concerned, necessary order may be passed submits the learned counsel.
11. This Court has considered the submission made and is of the opinion that the petitioners can be allowed to correct any defects in the presentation of this petition in accordance with law, for which time is hereby given to take such steps. The issue of maintainability will thereafter be taken up for consideration.
12. On the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that there is no specific direction in the said order dated 13.02.2025 passed by the Supreme Court to freeze the bank accounts of the petitioners herein as well as other individuals, this Court has made a pointed query to the learned Sr. GA to prove the same to the contrary by pointing at specific directions in this regard as could be found from the said order dated 13.02.2025. However, the learned Sr. GA has submitted that the same could not be done off handedly and had sought for time to seek instructions in this regard.
13. Accordingly, at this juncture, this Court hereby admits this petition, leaving the question of maintainability to be decided at a later date. The State respondent is directed to file the counter affidavit within the next date fixed.
14. This Court on consideration of the contention made by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the impugned communication was passed without reliance on any legal procedure or relevant provision of law, such question to be answered when the merits of this petition be taken up, at this point of time is persuaded to allow the prayer made by the petitioners for an interim interference with the operation of the said impugned communication dated 15.02.2025.
15. Accordingly, the said impugned communication dated 15.02.2025 is not to be put into effect, and if done so, decision taken is hereby directed to 4 be reversed. It is made clear that this is only an interim protection given to the petitioners.
16. List this matter for filing of the counter affidavit on 09.02.2026.
Judge Meghalaya 17.12.2025 "D. Nary, PS"
5