BRIMSINGH MAWPHNIANG Vs. STATE OF MEGHALAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought writ in the nature of direction quashing order dated 13.5.2010 passed by respondent No.2, and order dated 15.6.2010 and 29.11.2010 passed by respondent No.3 refusing the petitioner to recognize him as Sordar of village Nongladew. Further, mandamus has been sought directing the respondents No.2 and 3 to allow the petitioner to function as Sordar of village Nongladew.

(2.) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the counter affidavit of respon -dent No.3 and rejoinder affidavit to it. Other parties did not file their counter affidavits.

(3.) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner belongs to Khasi tribe of Megha -laya, by birth and lives in village Nongladew, District Ri -Bhoi. It is pleaded by the petitioner that on 6.12.2008, the villagers of village Nongladew elected him as Sordar of the village whereafter the petitioner started discharging his duties of Sordarship. He made a representation dated 20.12.2008 to the Syiem of Nongkhlaw (respondent No.3) to grant him Sanad of Sordarship. However, respondent No.3 (Syiem of Nongkhlaw) unreasonably delayed the process of granting the Sanad, and finally vide impugned letter dated 13.5.2010 communicated rejection of the claim of the petitioner and reiterated vide impugned order dated 29.11.2010 and directed the petitioner not to use the word (Sordar) against his name. Vide impugned order dated 15th June 2010 (Annexure VII to the petition), respondent No.2 informed the petitioner that he can be appointed as 'Headman of the locality' of the village as mentioned in the letter dated 13.5.2010 (Annexure VIII to the petition) sent by respondent No.3. It is pleaded by the petitioner that merely for the reason that he got married to a Garo woman, he does not cease to be a member of Khasi community, nor his marriage with Garo woman can deprive him of his Sordarship of the village. Alleging that the impugned orders passed by respondents No. 2 and 3 are arbitrary and illegal, particularly when in 2009 he was called to attend meeting of Durbar Hima of Nongkhlaw by the respondent No.3 (Syiem of Nongkhlaw) in 2008 -2009.